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

Palomar · 2003-02-10 21:19:13

The only saving grace is Cindy hasn't chimed in with how 18th century enlightenment is the answer to all of us ass-backwards neolithic thinking folks.
*I've never claimed 18th century Enlightenment philosophy has all the answers (because it doesn't).
What I have said (all along) is that it's my (model agnostic in orientation) opinion that 18th century Enlightenment philosophy offers some of the best models and tools for human use yet developed.
That's all.
And I've -never- referred to anyone here as "ass-backwards neolithic-thinking"...actually, I think New Mars has some of the best thinkers I've yet encountered in an internet forum (whether I agree with them or not).
--Cindy

*Whoops, I forgot to add that two other features of 18th century Enlightenment philosophy which I find extremely appealing are 1) it is intellectually honest, i.e. does not claim to know/have all the answers (no "be-all, end all") and 2) it is open-ended (which allows for admission of error, continual growth and change, etc).

No, Soph...no debate looming on my end of things, anyway. I'm very busy at this point in time. I was just having some fun with Clark and you guys (otherwise I'd take Clark up on his little challenge to reopen the death penalty issue). And even if I did have the time to spare, Clark and I would sooner than later simply wind up rehashing and repeating ourselves (been there, done that).

--Cindy

soph · 2003-02-10 21:23:22

Josh, perhaps people simply don't regard Proudhon highly enough to rebut him? Or they point to Adam Smith? Who knows?

And on people not seeing it, maybe they simply disagree because from their view, their basis and logic is either just as sound, or more sounds than yours?

Sure, from Karl Marx's position, capitalism might have sucked, and maybe the system caused his problems. But not from my perspective!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 21:23:28

It tends to be circular with soph, too. If I had more of a life I wouldn't be here as much as I am. I guess I need to take up whatever it is that you're doing, Cindy! Unless it means being a mother, I don't think I could deal with that!

soph · 2003-02-10 21:25:18

Oh, and on my last post, I am not trying to spark the debate again, just trying to make a point about perspectives... :angry:

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 21:43:12

Proudhon came after Adam Smith, and I believe even cited him on a few ocassions. People did regard Proudhon when he came out with his papers, he got a huge ammount of attention. And everyone did try to rebut his arguments. People slowly disregarded him becuse they knew his concepts were unrealistic to implement (and because anyone who could implement them couldn't really, you know, read- because proverty was so fucked up back then). No one in power wants to give up power (this will be true for awhile- this is why every single anarchist revolution has ended in a bloodbath for the anarchists). But the truth remains, that you're not truely free as long as property is considered a ?natural right,? and those who pretend so are lying or ignorant.

BTW, differing perspectices should be quite meaningless when we're talking about formal logic. If a person thinks ?their logic? is more sound than anothers, then one of them isn't understanding the others argument; assuming we're talking about logic based in fact, of course.

soph · 2003-02-10 21:54:46

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to judge society based on fact. In fact, I would have to say anything other than an analysis is based on opinion--any attempt to create a new system, that is. Which is why I say Adam Smith was ojective--he was observing what was, not creating something new.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 23:00:05

Well, I never talk about how things should be, I talk about how things are and how trends are going. I simply use Proudhon, because his arguments about liberty, equality, and so on, are quite clear. Proudhon never really outlined how society should be, and neither am I, really. I merely point the shortcomings of society, just as he did with his critique of property. All we have to do is show the contridictions, the rest come naturally. So yeah, Proudhon never ?created anything new,? he just showed how the justification for property, was completely contridictary.

Reading the Wealth of Nations, you can see quite a few times where he (Adam Smith) uses archaic terms.

For example, like most capitalists economists, when he refers to consumables, he claims that they ?are destroyed.? Granted, in his time, things which you consumed were destroyed, for all intents and purposes. But the laws of thermodynamics, and conservation say most things which are consumed really aren't destoryed. They just change form from one thing to another. As long as you have energy, converting from one form to another is possible.

I ?preach? this constantly on these forums. Does this mean what I say is incorrect? I would say poor Adam Smith is more incorrect than myself, what with him being so uninformed and all. He just doesn't understand the laws of physics!

Granted, I haven't read the whole thing (Wealth of Nations), but I would think that anyone who would read such a thing, and not be a historian, has way too much time on their hands. This coming from someone who is self admitedly bored during the day and has nothing better to do than to post a lot on his favorite forum!

I think we should really move on from this old age thinking. It's about damn time people realize how the universe functions. And, as I argue (much to the dismay of you old age thinkers), it'll be applied to economics regardless. No one can stop it, barring human extinction.

soph · 2003-02-11 05:35:10

And what if the labor-based capitalism continues to rule the marketplace-because it flexes on human nature? I see no reason, and I've been to about half the states of the country, and many foreign countries-to believe that capitalism is at all faltering. In fact, I think with the global economy, it's expanding to add another layer of supply and demand.

And your comment I believe shows a problem. I'm no purveryor of culture, but _The Wealth of Nations_ is regarded as one of the greatest books in history. Why has it come to a point where only an exclusive few will look at it?

clark · 2003-02-11 11:26:10

*Whoops, I forgot to add that two other features of 18th century Enlightenment philosophy which I find extremely appealing are 1) it is intellectually honest, i.e. does not claim to know/have all the answers (no "be-all, end all") and 2) it is open-ended (which allows for admission of error, continual growth and change, etc).

We all need something to believe in...

Please don't take my previous post to seriously, I was just chiming in.

As long as you have energy, converting from one form to another is possible.

Really? Well, I'd love to hear how you can apply this to property.

No no no, that beach front condo isn't destroying anything, it's simply CHANGING it!

I might also add that a piece of property being utilized can do nothing else, and be nothing else, so it is essentially destroyed.

Something to consider.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-11 11:30:56

Well, I'm no purveryor of culture either, but I certainly wouldn't ascribe to a cumulative popularity contest, just because someone else says I should. I've heard people discuss the Wealth of Nations before, and like I said, I have read some of it (books 1 and 4, though the last interests me, I just haven't felt like reading it). The reason I do suggest that it should be read by historians, is simply because it does use archaic language which isn't based in any current reality. This isn't a problem, this is fact.

And it depends on how you look at capitalism, to decide whether or not its faltering. If you judge it by how it treats people, generally, then it is clearly failing, because the wealth gap continues to increase. If you judge it by its ablity to grow, then it's certainly the strongest of all systems, or at least it currently is.

I'm not saying get rid of capitalism, I'm saying let it run its course, and it'll get rid of itself. We don't even have to see trends in that direction (even though we are, in the tech industry), all we have to do is create an argument in formal logic that says, ?there are limits to how good technology can be, and there are limits to how much capitalism can grow before demand becomes non-existant.? It's not a matter of if, but when.

Capitalism or basic trade is undoubtedly seeing its strength (even though the worls wealthiest country is entering a Japan-style recession). Investment in China, for example, is growing 10% every year. So there's no denying the strength of capitalism by me.

Now, since you like to accuse me of being a wall, I shall accuse you of being a circular race track. I expect us to take another lap when you respond, because we've been over this before.

soph · 2003-02-11 14:17:48

No, I wasn't being derogratory- I meant that society as a whole just can't compete with the minds of our ancestors. For the time, it wasn't really archaic language-how many people can understand Kant, or Locke?

To an extent, society just builds on what it sees and has in front of it, and does not seek to explore for itself.

clark · 2003-02-12 10:23:46

I meant that society as a whole just can't compete with the minds of our ancestors.

I haven't laughed this well in a loooooong time.

Soph, do you think that we today have less of an ability to understand the universe than our ancestors?

I might offer our continual progress as a sign that it isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

To an extent, society just builds on what it sees and has in front of it, and does not seek to explore for itself.

What else should society build upon? Fantasy?

And as for the exploration bit, well, I for one simply disagree with that assessment. It makes no sense.

soph · 2003-02-12 13:34:03

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the youth, in particular, has become lazy. They ignore anything outside their field, and they don't do anything outside of what's required. The few that do are the ones you read about.

Besides for a select few space pioneers, we're about documenting Earth. Nobody wants to find that new frontier-it's all about making life easier, and sterile.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 13:48:33

Well, I don't know what to say to all that. But I know for certain concepts Adam Smith discussed aren't going to help us progress very far into space.

soph · 2003-02-12 13:51:35

my whole point wasn't about adam smith helping us-it's about the cultural awareness people at that time had. We have no more Adam Smith's, no more Voltaire's, no more Da Vinci's, and so on.

Sure, we have our inventors, but our fire seems to be going out for pioneering, as regulation and technology makes life easier.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 13:59:28

I simply don't see that. We just aren't advanced enough, technologically speaking, to go into space. We'll get their eventually.

It's hard for me to imagine anything really getting better. Old inventors had individual concepts. These days, concepts come from corporations, or collectives of individuals. No longer are we limited to one persons imagination, we're able to progress via a sort of democratic process (in that scientists or management people or whatever sit around a table and discuss the best way to do something).

The days of one person realizing something spectacular are over, I'd say. A person can observe the motions of objects. A person cannot, without lots of technology and collective intelligence, observe how particles work at the smallest depths.

The same sort of awareness still exists. Behold, the information age. No longer are the best ideas limited to individuals.

clark · 2003-02-12 14:06:24

We have no more Adam Smith's, no more Voltaire's, no more Da Vinci's, and so on.

Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Oppeniheim, Einstein, Steven Hawking, Ray Bradbury, Derrida, Dean Kamen, Keyenes... the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...

Please remember, history and time have a way of sifting through our contemporay life, and only remembering those shining beacons of human thought. in other words, it takes time to realize who was worth remembering.

We could just as easily say that Hollywood produces nothing but crap, when it used to make nothing but quality films. But that isn't accurate. the truth is that HJollywood has always made crap films, only no one remembers those old crap films anymore becuase they are not worth our time.

Our continual progress, into areas that have belonged in the realm of the unimagined, are occuing at a rapidly accelerating rate. Our way of life today is vastly different than our way of life two decades ago. And the difference only increases as we compare to further and further back.

A greater percentage of our population is receiving secondary education- a generation ago, only a small elite went to a university- now it is open to the masses!

We have put people on the moon, imaged the edge of the galaxy, conquered diseases, and have the ability to feed the world.

Our fire is not dying.

soph · 2003-02-12 14:20:39

Alright, one thing I have to disagree with:

I simply don't see that. We just aren't advanced enough, technologically speaking, to go into space. We'll get their eventually.

We have the technology, it's just the willingness to spend the resources and effort to use it that's holding us back. We've had the means to get to Mars for a few decades-people just lost interest in the Space program somewhere between Apollo 11 and 13. There are still flares of interest, Challenger, Pathfinder, and Columbia come to mind-but not the sustained interest that would allow us to get somewhere.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 14:35:03

Well yeah, we do have the technology, I've argued this before with clark, but since that technology isn't yet in a form which can be applied to space, we're stuck here for the time being. Plus, it does need to be tweaked in a lot of ways before it's totally reliable.

The first space pioneers will be the ones applying the technology, undoubtedly. But that application, in and of itself, would be creating new derivative technologies. A hydoponic garden that works in space probably functions differently than one on Earth.

clark · 2003-02-12 14:45:06

Ugh, this again?

Yes, we have the technology.

Did you also know we have the technology to turn lead into gold? So why don't we do that?

We have all sorts of "technology" that could conceivably let us do all sorts of things, however, it takes time, and it takes money.

Going into space is not as simple as SF writers make it seem. The environmental conditions alone push our matieral sciences right to the bleeding edge of what they are capable of. The Shuttle, 70's technology, is still pretty good, but look at how it is designed for re-entry. teh fact that we have such huge problem developing a working SSTO system should be a sign that our technology isn't so "out there".

Don't even get me started on the satte of our bio-regeneration systems. Our closed system life support needs serious attention BEFORE we can even contemplate space.

Then we talk abotu "colonization". Let's look at where we are NOW- we ahve enough problems trying to figure out how we can add the other 4 people to ISS, so colonization is a far cry from tommorrow.

And imagine living in space (something I keep repeating over and over). You will be dependant upon a machine- a machine with many thousands upon thousands of INTEGRAL parts- any one of which that fails, kills you. The Shuttle, every launch, had mechanical failures of some derivation. The ISS experiences systems failures or glitches all the time (so did MIR).

We ahve the technology- or we have working concepts- but we don't have RELIABILITY and SAFTEY.

Spending billions to put people into space, without a good guareentee that the capital investment won't fail seems to be a pretty good idea.

Of course, we could just launch smart monkey after smart moneky, not caring abut their chances of success.

Mars, or BOOM. I guess it has a nice ring to it...

???

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 14:57:35

And like I concluded in our several arguments about this, clark. It's the application by pioneers that will make the technology safe and reliable.

Once we have a cheap way to get into space, we will be able to apply the life support (et al) technology, ?cheaply.? 95% of cost is in payload launches.

People going to Mars won't be the stupid ass investors. It'll be people who do it out of pocket.

clark · 2003-02-12 15:02:33

It's the application by pioneers that will make the technology safe and reliable.

Okay, I can buy this. However, is the technology ready for pioneers to start *applying* it?

Once we have a cheap way to get into space, we will be able to apply the life support (et al) technology, ?cheaply.? 95% of cost is in payload launches.

What do you know, a banner day for all, I agree. But getting into space is a far cry from cheap, and not so routine.

soph · 2003-02-12 15:23:25

Unfortunately, it has no more than that. We have nuclear technology that would make designing an SSTO entirely possible, and Mars exploration possible, and reliably safe as well.

Come on, clark, it's obvious that we have the means, it's just whether or not we choose to apply it.

soph · 2003-02-12 15:26:49

But getting into space is a far cry from cheap, and not so routine.

You know, getting to the New World in the 1600s wasn't cheap and routine, but it was done anyway-at a far greater risk to more lives. Now, ocean travel is cheap, and air travel is cheap, and routine as well. If we hadn't bridged the oceans, where would we be now? How can you design a system to withstand an environment that you haven't observed, because you perpetually say: "We need it to be safer and cheaper."

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 15:32:01

Okay, I can buy this. However, is the technology ready for pioneers to start *applying* it?

Yes! Why the heck not?!

Bare with me, okay?

Say we could launch stuff into space for only a dollar a pound (very optimistic), the Mars Society could then, quite easily, send up everything they wanted. From TransLife labs, to hydoponic gardens. Everyone would be doing this, not just the pioneers, mind you.

Yes, we would have to adapt most of our technology to the launch payload systems or whatever, but we could get the parts we needed for most experiments at like Loes or something!

sophs' New World analoy stands. I've used it before, and it is quite applicable.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2003-02-10 21:19:13

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

#102 2003-02-10 21:23:22

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

#103 2003-02-10 21:23:28

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

#104 2003-02-10 21:25:18

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

#105 2003-02-10 21:43:12

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

#106 2003-02-10 21:54:46

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

#107 2003-02-10 23:00:05

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

#108 2003-02-11 05:35:10

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

#109 2003-02-11 11:26:10

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

#110 2003-02-11 11:30:56

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

#111 2003-02-11 14:17:48

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

#112 2003-02-12 10:23:46

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

#113 2003-02-12 13:34:03

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

#114 2003-02-12 13:48:33

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

#115 2003-02-12 13:51:35

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

#116 2003-02-12 13:59:28

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

#117 2003-02-12 14:06:24

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

#118 2003-02-12 14:20:39

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

#119 2003-02-12 14:35:03

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

#120 2003-02-12 14:45:06

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

#121 2003-02-12 14:57:35

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

#122 2003-02-12 15:02:33

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

#123 2003-02-12 15:23:25

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

#124 2003-02-12 15:26:49

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

#125 2003-02-12 15:32:01

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

Board footer