Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

Free Spirit · 2003-09-02 02:00:17

To those of have read The Case For Mars did you also find it offensive how Zubrin kept glorifying the American expansion across the West without any mention of the hardships frontierism inflicted on indigenous peoples as though they didn't exist in the first place? It was particularly disturbing how he chided European governments for not seeing the "economic benefits" of colonizing the New World earlier than they did (p. 219). Whenever I read through these parts of the book I gave Zubrin the benefit of the doubt and just assumed he hadn't really considered the environmental and genocidal tragedies these settlers actually caused. Below is an excerpt from the book that I think typifies Zubrin's attitude:

Without a frontier from which to breathe new life, the spirit that gave rise to the progressive humanistic culture that America has represented for the past two centuries is fading. The issue is not just one of national loss -- human progress needs a vanguard, and no replacement is in sight.
The creation of a new frontier thus presents itself as America's and humanity's greatest social need. Nothing is more important: Apply what palliatives you will, without a frontier to grow in, not only American society, but the entire global civilization based upon values of humanism, science, and progress will ultimately die. [297]

Thus Zubrin, whether he realizes it or not, is basically saying humanity must keep conquering new territory if it wants to maintain 'progress', that new frontiers in the universe must be found and exploited for the glory of science and humanism. I didn't believe that Zubrin realized how parasitic this would make humanity until I found out he was the only person at a recent exo-biology conference that actually defended the colonization of Mars regardless of whether life exists there or not. Here's what he said:

"First, I think if we find life on Mars, we should go and study it. Secondly, that planet’s potential usefulness for humanity as a future home is clear. We accomplish none of those objectives if we stay away. To say that millions of people from Earth cannot have a planet of refuge from persecution or a planet of opportunity, to have those dreams denied because esthetically it is pleasing that native martian bacteria are left un-intruded upon...that’s just crazy. That is an esthetic position, not an ethical position," Zubrin said.

source

And thus Zubrin immorally states that life elsewhere is irrelevant if it stands in the way of our "progress." I think it is time for Mars Society members to call into question Zubrin's moral qualifications for being the MS leader and to re-establish the Mars Society as an agency for the peaceful exploration of Mars as opposed to one that advocates brutally conquering and colonizing Mars despite any native life that may live there. And I'll admit that at one time I didn't think that microbial Mars life was much of a moral issue either but have since changed my mind.

Here's a good article on space environmentalism:

Astroenvironmentalism: The Case for Space Exploration As An Environmental Issue

Palomar · 2003-09-02 06:24:34

*5:44 a.m. and I haven't had any caffeine yet, but I'll try my best to answer your post. First of all, are you Native American? I'm wondering. I've mentioned it twice before, but: My maternal great-grandmother was Native American.

Free Spirit: "To those of have read The Case For Mars did you also find it offensive how Zubrin kept glorifying the American expansion across the West without any mention of the hardships frontierism inflicted on indigenous peoples as though they didn't exist in the first place? It was particularly disturbing how he chided European governments for not seeing the "economic benefits" of colonizing the New World earlier than they did (p. 219)."

*A better analogy could have been used. The expansion into the American West was brutal and bloody, and yes the indigenous people suffered for it. Keep in mind that the entire history of humankind has been one of expansion; not every other instance of it was probably lovely and peaceable either (like my Czech relatives who were slaughtered and their homes burned by the Nazi invasion of their land)...but of course that -doesn't- justify or excuse what occurred in the American West. Humankind has a nasty history of being brutal and hard on each other...unfortunately. As for "chiding European governments for not seeing the 'economic benefits; of colonizing the New World earlier than they did," you might be surprised to know that Great Britain determined, shortly before the Revolutionary War of 1776, that colonists were NOT to settle beyond specific boundaries, which they were to remain in, and that Native Americans were to be left alone and the remainder of their land untouched. Of course, the establishment of the U.S. as a sovereign nation independent of England changed that...as we know.

"Thus Zubrin, whether he realizes it or not, is basically saying humanity must keep conquering new territory if it wants to maintain 'progress', that new frontiers in the universe must be found and exploited for the glory of science and humanism."

*I don't look upon going to Mars as "conquering it" or in a "Westward - HO!" sort of way. I never have. I've been interested in mankind going out into space since I was a kid...long before I encountered the Mars Society. As for progress itself: The *non-space-exploration* type can be had without physical expansion; sometimes the greatest progress has occurred within the bounds of a particular nation. Physical expansion and progress aren't necessarily synonymous (progress is usually, IMO, of the intellectual and social type...non-physical).

Free Spirit: "I didn't believe that Zubrin realized how parasitic this would make humanity until I found out he was the only person at a recent exo-biology conference that actually defended the colonization of Mars regardless of whether life exists there or not. Here's what he said:

Quote
"First, I think if we find life on Mars, we should go and study it. Secondly, that planet?s potential usefulness for humanity as a future home is clear. We accomplish none of those objectives if we stay away. To say that millions of people from Earth cannot have a planet of refuge from persecution or a planet of opportunity, to have those dreams denied because esthetically it is pleasing that native martian bacteria are left un-intruded upon...that?s just crazy. That is an esthetic position, not an ethical position," Zubrin said.

source

And thus Zubrin immorally states that life elsewhere is irrelevant if it stands in the way of our 'progress.'"

I think it is time for Mars Society members to call into question Zubrin's moral qualifications for being the MS leader and to re-establish the Mars Society as an agency for the peaceful exploration of Mars as opposed to one that advocates brutally conquering and colonizing Mars despite any native life that may live there. And I'll admit that at one time I didn't think that microbial Mars life was much of a moral issue either but have since changed my mind."

*Well, since Dr. Zubrin founded the Mars Society, I don't know how he could step down from it. As for the issue of microbial life on Mars (which should be preserved, IMO): What if humans -can- go to Mars and the microbial life -can-
be maintained/preserved? Keep in mind that only a handful of people will be initially going to Mars ala the "Mars Direct" plan; no more than 6 people. It is going to take A LONG TIME to get even 100 people up there. Given the fact that the Mars Direct (or other) astronauts are going to have to live in a tiny space where everything is reused and recycled, and given the fact that it's a big planet with just one tiny little hab on it, I don't see this as a viable threat to microbial life on Mars. I could be wrong, of course. And what if our presence there somehow impacts positively on Marsian microbial life, and it proceeds to flourish?

Considering all the foot-dragging going on with NASA and etc., we may never get to Mars. This will probably turn out to be a non-issue. Mars and our moon are the only bodies in our solar system which are not extremely inimical to mankind, compared with the other planets and their moons! The moon has no water, little gravity: Not a candidate, IMO, for colonization. Mars, IMO, is our best bet for human exploration and perhaps eventual settlement/colonization.

What if a tiny human presence on Mars and the microbes can co-exist? *IS* this an either/or scenario? I don't know. If the panspermia theory proves true, human life may not be inimical to Marsian microbes. We've had meteors from Mars hit Earth; there's been some natural "contamination" to us in that regard. Is it possible bits and pieces of Earth (sans robots) have landed as meteors on Mars?

Mankind can learn from his mistakes...if he wants to. We needn't paint ourselves into a corner and dare not twitch another muscle because of our past (generally deplorable) history.

I'm all for preserving those little Marsian microbes. And can mankind learn to expand -physically- in the most thoughtful, gentle manner possible? I'd like to think he can.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-02 07:37:48

Hmm, I hadn't seen that Zubrin quote before. If a majority of people go to Mars and wish it to stay the same for aesthetic purposes, it is an ethical issue to do contrary to the desires of those people, regardless of how you feel about it. Zubrin may be failing to miss that aesthetics alone are enough to cause such a situation. No bacteria need even be found for certain groups, ie Reds, to feel that way about Mars. And I think that we may be surprised by how many people see Mars as it is and will wish for it to be unchanging.

Even though I disagree with Zubrin on these and other issues, I see no reason for him to step down, though. All groups need a fringe thinker (sorry Zubrin! you crazy haired fellow, you know that doesn't mean any offense; assuming you even read these forums). All groups need someone to pronounce an ideology and stick to it. I personally, over time, have mellowed on the Frontieer concept, because I think the benefits themselves may be exaggerated, especially when we start talking about Space colonization. Once we can colonize space, our technological development will have reached pretty much its physical limits; so I don't see the frontieer helping in that aspect. KSR may be right about medicinal developments, though.

Palomar · 2003-09-02 09:38:54

Even though I disagree with Zubrin on these and other issues, I see no reason for him to step down, though.

*Me neither. Requesting someone step down because of an opinion is tantamount to censorship and coercion; it's attempting to punish someone in a tangible manner for what they believe, what they say, etc.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with -asking- someone to rethink their opinion (with "no strings attached" to the asking).

--Cindy

dicktice · 2003-09-02 11:43:52

Freespirit: Call it what it is: EXPLORATION. It's what we humans DO. Besides, we'll know enough about Mars by then, to avoid e.g. Columbus's errors of exploitation. Offer an alternative to support your position, by all means--short of copping-out, I mean. Where's your sense of adventure...?

Echus_Chasma · 2003-09-02 13:05:56

Thus Zubrin, whether he realizes it or not, is basically saying humanity must keep conquering new territory if it wants to maintain 'progress', that new frontiers in the universe must be found and exploited for the glory of science and humanism. I didn't believe that Zubrin realized how parasitic this would make humanity until I found out he was the only person at a recent exo-biology conference that actually defended the colonization of Mars regardless of whether life exists there or not. Here's what he said:
Quote
"First, I think if we find life on Mars, we should go and study it. Secondly, that planet?s potential usefulness for humanity as a future home is clear. We accomplish none of those objectives if we stay away. To say that millions of people from Earth cannot have a planet of refuge from persecution or a planet of opportunity, to have those dreams denied because esthetically it is pleasing that native martian bacteria are left un-intruded upon...that?s just crazy. That is an esthetic position, not an ethical position," Zubrin said.

Zubrin had to defend colonisation of Mars, if he didn't then he would be comprimising his position at the head of the Mars Society. A leader who isn't prepared to defend Martian colonisation, I don't think so.

Are you willing to run the risk of not colonising because there is a POSSIBLITY that Martian life is present? It is a bit excessive to think that we have to search under every rock and turn every leaf (excuse the pun) for life before we can colonise. I think we still have our hopes too high of finding life on Mars. Even if it was there it would probably be under-ground while we'd be on the surface.

RobertDyck · 2003-09-02 15:13:43

"First, I think if we find life on Mars, we should go and study it. Secondly, that planet?s potential usefulness for humanity as a future home is clear. We accomplish none of those objectives if we stay away. To say that millions of people from Earth cannot have a planet of refuge from persecution or a planet of opportunity, to have those dreams denied because esthetically it is pleasing that native martian bacteria are left un-intruded upon...that?s just crazy. That is an esthetic position, not an ethical position," Zubrin said.
source
And thus Zubrin immorally states that life elsewhere is irrelevant if it stands in the way of our "progress." I think it is time for Mars Society members to call into question Zubrin's moral qualifications for being the MS leader and to re-establish the Mars Society as an agency for the peaceful exploration of Mars as opposed to one that advocates brutally conquering and colonizing Mars despite any native life that may live there. And I'll admit that at one time I didn't think that microbial Mars life was much of a moral issue either but have since changed my mind.

I'm afraid I have to take Dr. Zubrin's side on this issue. There was an excellent debate regarding this between Dr. Chris McKay and Dr. Zubrin. A Reverend and Penny Boston were also present. Dr. Zubrin was at the height of his hyperbole, and Penny was calling for a more moderate position. The people in this thread would have loved the debate. You should ensure you make the next conference.

As I see it, the most advanced life we can expect to find on Mars is archaea. If there were little green men with ray guns, we would have spotted then by now. The fossil oval structures of organic compounds found in meteorite ALH84001 were smaller that any prokaryotic bacteria on Earth, only archaea are that small. This does make sense since archaea are the oldest and most primitive life on Earth, and most if not all extremophiles are archaea. But it took several billion years for archaea to evolve into sentient life on Earth. Two billion years ago the most advanced life form was stromatolites, but they are organised colonies of cyanobacteria, an advanced form of prokaryotic cell. If the most advanced life on Mars today is archaea, then evolution there is very slow. This makes sense considering it is frozen most of the time; the only evidence we have seen for liquid water on Mars is seeps from the side of canyons facing the sun on the equator. The water evaporates so quickly we only see the channels after the fact, we don't see the water itself. Given that it took at least 3 billion years for evolution to go from archaea to us on Earth, you can expect it to take at least twice that long on Mars. But the sun will expand into a red giant in 5 billion years, destroying all planets in the inner solar system. If there is archaea on Mars then time has already run out for them. There is not enough time for archaea on Mars to evolve into sentience before all life in the solar system is extinguished.

Given that the most advanced life on Mars is more primitive than pond scum, and that its greatest aspiration is to evolve into pond scum, why would we worry about moral questions? We should study it, not run away from it.

There are practical considerations. Since rocks are exchanged between Earth and Mars, are those rocks from Mars the source of new diseases? If so we should study life on Mars as a repository of future diseases on Earth. If life evolved separately on Mars then that is a very important scientific finding; it would imply life is common throughout the galaxy. If life didn't evolve separately then did it start on Earth and migrate to Mars, or did it start on Mars and migrate to Earth? Either way the life on Mars could give us clues to ancient life on Earth.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-02 22:00:49

I'm sorry, Free Spirit, but I simply cannot agree with your fanatical, unfounded criticism of Dr. Zubrin. I met him, nearly a year ago, and was fortunate enough to have dinner and a lengthy discussion with him on a number of topics, along with some others interested in his work. He is kind, thoughtful, passionate, nonimperialist, and the gentlest man you'll meet. The last pejorative he should ever receive is "Indian-killer".

If your remarks weren't so sharp, they would be laughable. You're trying to pin him as some "vile" conquistador who is self-serving and unforgiving. Clearly you haven't actually read (and not just skimmed) any of his books, for his intelligence, wisdom, practicality, and idealism are all quite visible in his writing, as well as his face.

To those of have read The Case For Mars did you also find it offensive how Zubrin kept glorifying the American expansion across the West without any mention of the hardships frontierism inflicted on indigenous peoples as though they didn't exist in the first place?

Do you know why he didn't mention all the native inhabitants of the Red Planet who would be uprooted, starved, depopulated, and ultimately removed from their fertile lands?

Because there aren't any! He's not being insensitive; he's being not stupid. In his books, Zubrin points out all the best parts of colonization and how they jumpstart a stagnate society to innovate and to explore and to become better than what it was before. He keeps referencing the "Yankee ingenuity" and other originally quite American traits that swept the globe after their innovation in the United States, not least of which representative democracy and the concepts of freedom that were utterly laughed at by the Europeans, until they proved successful.
He shows why Americans (to a degree) deserve a sense of pride about their homeland, for all it gave to the world and benefited humanity. And he maintains, most logically and rationally, that all this occurred in the first place due to colonization of the New World.

Thus Zubrin, whether he realizes it or not, is basically saying humanity must keep conquering new territory if it wants to maintain 'progress', that new frontiers in the universe must be found and exploited for the glory of science and humanism.

That's a very cynical spin on something fundamentally good about humanity (I completely agree with you, Cindy), that we explore and create and evolve and better ourselves. And Zubrin is one hundred percent right. When given the opportunity, the Chinese (Ming Dynasty) turned down the chance to explore and infuse its culture with new ideas because the threat of those ideas was too dangerous to its old ways. And China became stagnate, frail, and weak because of its absolute ignorance. Its dominion by those who did not turn away from the sea, the Europeans, was its resultant punishment for trying to ignore the world, or have the hubris to think that there was no world beyond the borders of China.
So, yes, to use fewer buzz words and inflamatory speech, you are correct that humanity must continue to explore and learn new things and be challenged by new situations in order to progress forward and become better than it is.

I also think it's incredibly ironic that you believe he is offensive towards the Native Americans; one of his fondest hobbies is the study of Native American tribes, languages, and cultures, particularly those of the American Northeast. I discovered this at dinner, when he and an anthropoligist had a lengthy discussion regarding some Indian tribes I had never even heard of before.
He is indeed a man of many sensitivities. It's always better to have dinner with a man before you judge him so evil as to rip his own organization away from him.

As for the potential bacteria on Mars...if we restore Mars to how it was billions of years ago, then the bacteria that used to inhabit the planet will live and grow again. They will be better suited to Mars than any of our lifeforms. Most likely, they'd be so different that they wouldn't interact anyway. ...Assuming there's anything left alive at all.

There are practical considerations. Since rocks are exchanged between Earth and Mars, are those rocks from Mars the source of new diseases? If so we should study life on Mars as a repository of future diseases on Earth. If life evolved separately on Mars then that is a very important scientific finding; it would imply life is common throughout the galaxy. If life didn't evolve separately then did it start on Earth and migrate to Mars, or did it start on Mars and migrate to Earth? Either way the life on Mars could give us clues to ancient life on Earth.

During the dinner I had with Dr. Zubrin and some other colleagues (he is quite a voracious eater!), he noted how the chance of infection by Martian bacteria is absurd, for the viruses and germs that affect us humans are tailored specific by evolution to attack very specific parts of us, and only us; a cat won't become sick if her master has cought a cold, for the genetic differences between the two individuals is jut far too great for any leap. As a result, no Martian disease could ever begin to compete with terrestrial illnesses that have a four billion year head start; they would not be able to adapt, certainly not in any way that would infect us.

More than that, it's actually most likely that life originated on Mars. Yes, it sounds quite odd. At one point during the dinner, Dr. Zubrin noted that, during the early days of the solar system, Mars would have become habitable and friendly to life long before Earth did. As Mars cooled (more quickly due to its smaller mass) and its oceans formed, Earth was still a fiery ball of molten rock (and much more susceptible to asteroid impact due to its greater mass). For millions of years while Earth still remained uninhabitable, Mars enjoyed very terrestrial conditions, and became a wonderful cradle of life. Life even evolved there to the point of incredibly complex bacteria (like archaea) that could replicate themselves, and adapt to new conditions.

On Earth, the simplest, most archaic form of life is unbelievably complex and divine. Indeed, without considering Mars, the greatest "proof" for the existence if God would be that He put the first bacteria on the Earth, little organic machines that are more complicated and efficient than internal combustion engines ? and can replicate themselves! Strictly scientifically speaking, such spontaneous generation of complex life is impossible. Nor is it possible that all the more primitive "steps" on the rung of life prior to the bacteria could have been outmatched by the more evolved organisms; that would be counter to evolutionary trends, for the most primitive are always the most populous (there're more bacteria in your body than people on the Earth). There is a huge, unignorable gap between simple proteins and ?ber-complex DNA molecules.
So where did the first lippid-encrusted little gems of nucleic acid come from?

Mars is the only viable answer. Life had all that time to slowly turn into something like archaea. Asteroid imptacts were extremely common in the early solar system, and so enormous quantities of meteors from Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury alike were flying around the inner planets all time, hitting each other constantly. So, as soon as Earth cooled enough for liquid water to form, one of the many bacteria-filled Martian meteors hit, and infected Earth with its first life: incredibly complex bacteria that could replicate themselves with unimaginable ease.

Mars gave us our jumpstart. Due to its most unfortunate cataclysm, the Red Planet lost its ability to sustain life. I think returning that gift to Mars would only be poetic, and most just indeed.

RobertDyck · 2003-09-03 00:11:50

There are practical considerations. Since rocks are exchanged between Earth and Mars, are those rocks from Mars the source of new diseases? If so we should study life on Mars as a repository of future diseases on Earth. If life evolved separately on Mars then that is a very important scientific finding; it would imply life is common throughout the galaxy. If life didn't evolve separately then did it start on Earth and migrate to Mars, or did it start on Mars and migrate to Earth? Either way the life on Mars could give us clues to ancient life on Earth.
During the dinner I had with Dr. Zubrin and some other colleagues (he is quite a voracious eater!), he noted how the chance of infection by Martian bacteria is absurd, for the viruses and germs that affect us humans are tailored specific by evolution to attack very specific parts of us, and only us; a cat won't become sick if her master has cought a cold, for the genetic differences between the two individuals is jut far too great for any leap. As a result, no Martian disease could ever begin to compete with terrestrial illnesses that have a four billion year head start; they would not be able to adapt, certainly not in any way that would infect us.
More than that, it's actually most likely that life originated on Mars.

Ah, Robert's assertion that Martian disease cannot infect anyone on Earth. I read that in his book. Actually, life is amazingly complex. Diseases can cross species. Many people think you can't catch a cold from your cat or vice versa, but the reality is that farm animals are the source of most forms of flu. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is the exact same disease as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow disease). BSE is easier to infect across species since it is a prion; any mammal can catch it. Robert Zubrin's argument that life on Earth could not catch a disease from Mars only holds true if life on Mars is truly different that Earth. If life originated on Earth and was seeded on Mars, or vice versa, then there is the common genetic basis to permit infection. Diseases are amazingly adaptable; they have to be. Robert would like to argue that infection from Mars is impossible to alleviate a fear by irrational politicians. Scientists know that we cannot make assumptions, we have to investigate. Scientists also know that we already have a sealed lab capable of handling alien microbes; it's the Apollo sample examination facility at the Johnson Space Center. Lunar samples are still there so the facilities are well maintained.

I agree that life could have originated on Mars. Robert is correct there, and his arguments are much better formulated than my statement that it could have happened. I still say "could" rather than "did". I also say the ice cracks on Europa look as much like the top of glaciers as pack ice; the data we have does not convince me one way or the other that there is a liquid ocean on Europa. I say we should go find out. The oval shapes of organic molecules in meteorite ALH84001 do look like fossilized bacteria, but how do we know they didn't enter the sample soon after it came to Earth? I could give other examples where I was not convinced of the conclusion others jumped to, I will simply repeat that we should go find out. I strongly believe we need a manned mission to Mars now!

By the way, I also got a chance to talk to Dr. Zubrin last year, and again at this year's conference. It was quite enlightening. I learned a lot from his books, and more when he talked to me this year about the Orbital Space Plane. I also learned that he is a human being with strengths and fallibilities. I am a fan of his, but isn't it the duty of every student to question his teacher?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-03 08:28:28

Cindy's interpretation of Free Spirit's way of thinking is, I think, very important in all this. Even at 5.44 in the morning (and no caffeine), she still makes more sense than I do with all my faculties at my command!

Cindy:-

We needn't paint ourselves into a corner and dare not twitch another muscle because of our past (generally deplorable) history.

This is a fundamental truth. We are a flawed species in many ways, it's undeniable. We are capable of terrible things; awful selfishness and cruelty, enough to make our own blood curdle. But we're also capable of the most profound goodness and altruism; often beyond the abilities of sociologists to explain. We can build beautiful architecture, compose rapturously inspiring music, perform deeds of breathtaking courage and compassion, and ponder the deepest mysteries of this incredible universe.
God help us, we're both the divine and the diabolical all rolled into one; but we're here! Somehow, for some reason, the universe spawned us .. and we are here.
I stand and ask you: Who are you to say we are not the summit of all creation; the reason for 13.7 billion years of universal evolution? What if we are the lone torch of sentience? What if we are as good as it gets?
If we are, and there's no evidence yet to prove otherwise, then we owe it to the universe and whatever God may exist, if any, to continue to live. In this ever-changing, ever-evolving cosmos, the only thing we can be sure of is that whatever fails to move and change and adapt and take advantage of any luck that comes its way, is doomed to extinction. The universe may be littered with the detritus of civilisations which hesitated, vacillated, and agonised over minor points of ultimately too-precious ethical and moral philosophy.

I disagree with you, Free Spirit, in more ways and more profoundly than I can express. Mars itself is not important. Earth, beautiful as it is, is not important. Even our whole galaxy may not be important! What is important is life; and not just any life, but thinking, feeling, contemplating life. Us! We are important in our own right and, if an opportunity to expand to another world comes our way, a chance to insure against extinction by the blind workings of chance, we had better take it while the taking's good!
This is a vast, unfeeling, uncaring creation we live in. Our recent centuries of relatively benign conditions here on Earth shouldn't blind us to the fact that a new roll of the dice could snuff us out as surely as we might blow out a candle. Then where will all our moralising be; what use our self-righteousness and self-deprecation?!
Our survival may well depend on expansion. What thought will a few trillion bacteria on Mars give to the lost opportunities of a sentient humanity if Earth falls prey to a random collision with a comet? Let me hazard a guess ... not much!! They will go on in their unseeing, unthinking, relentless reproduction for another billion years, or two, before succumbing to the inexorable expansion of our star as their genes disintegrate in the heat.

We're becoming lost in a sickening welter of navel-gazing sentimentality and guilt-ridden angst over what our great-grandparents are reputed to have done! This, to me, is the mark of a civilisation which is reaching the end of its energies and approaching its own demise.
For all our sakes, get over it!!! :angry:

[P.S. I too would like to know whether Free Spirit is of American Indian descent. If so, it might help to explain his/her attitude to Mars colonisation, though the circumstances could hardly be more dissimilar to 19th century America!
As Cindy so rightly points out, no group of humans on this planet has the monopoly on grievances. My own Irish father told me tales of British brutality in Ireland that would make your hair stand on end.
I'm not impressed by ethnic groups with lists of grievances, be they Irish, Australian aborigines, American Indians, or anyone else. I want to hear about building a future for humanity, not dwelling on past injustices.
In the Australian vernacular: "Stop your bloody whingeing and get back in the game!!"]

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-03 09:40:44

I think it's obvious that killing bugs isn't comparable to killing people. Question is, what happens if we have a society of bug worshipers (ie, early human colonizers who go to Mars and declare it a safe zone, if you will)? Does Zubrin's stance change?

clark · 2003-09-03 10:44:49

god is creation, man but re-creation, in that, our inherent failure, in that, our unending task.

The Universe is, and will always be.

If we change the face of a mountain, is it no longer a mountain? Is it less of a mountain than it once was? How do our hands alter the substance of what the moutain is?

We can say that to destroy is to distort random chance, or undo God's will. Take yor pick.

If it's random chance you believe, then we are part of that chaotic dice game, and anything we do is merely part of the game.

If it's God's will you invoke, then I merely ask how one is to know what God's will is related to destroying Martian microbes.

dicktice · 2003-09-05 09:56:53

Clark: I hesitate to call it "rubbish" but, whatever are you getting on about...? Shaun's contribution just preceeding yours, is right to the point.

space_psibrain · 2003-09-05 22:29:02

You might consider that the reason that the United States was able to grow so powerful, and is so much more tolerant than some other countries, so much more liberal, is because of the "frontier factor."

As for illnesses, something that evolved on Mars from a separate strain of bacterium or virus over a period of 4.5 billion years will probably not be compatible with the human organism.

dicktice · 2003-09-07 07:51:05

Psibrain: Your use of the word "probably" is sufficient reason why samples not be returned for initial analysis anywhere near Earth. Mars one-way trips should be the law, and I don't mean probably, until we know what's lying in wait for us there.

clark · 2003-09-08 11:39:58

Dicktice,

No matter what you believe, there is no reason not to go to Mars. No matter what you believe, there is no concrete reason not to alter him.

Joss · 2003-09-08 17:18:10

Boy, I sure hope we'll go to Mars and remake Mars as Earth II. It's a question of both survival and economic growth.

The comparison to the settlement of America at the expense of the local primitive tribes doesn't apply, as there are no "Martian men" (by "men" I mean thinking animals).

As to what happened in the early US, you cannot lump together wholesale murder with the intensive exploitation of natural resources that were not exploited previously at all.

Personally, I will only continue to support the MS if it supports a ruthless colonization and terraformation of Mars.

Palomar · 2003-09-08 18:19:41

Personally, I will only continue to support the MS if it supports a ruthless colonization and terraformation of Mars.

*Hi. Are you a registered, dues-paying member of the Mars Society? I am, for 2-1/4 years now. If your answer is "no," then how do you perceive yourself as "supporting" the Mars Society? I mean -other than- via words (i.e., registering at this forum and sharing your views -- which you are certainly entitled to do, of course)?

It seems that (pardon me if I'm in error) you are framing your statements within the context of membership. I'd prefer only actual members do that, especially when it comes to the sometimes "touchy" topic of terraforming.

And in my opinion, "ruthless" measures by humans (throughout history, irregardless of geographical location or race) usually if not always leads to misery and failure.

--Cindy

space_psibrain · 2003-09-08 23:01:09

Greens vs. Reds...sigh.

Personally, I'm in favor of establishing an orbital base around Mars, for facilitation of Mars Surface Missions, and Asteroid Mining, so that we may be able to test samples with elaborate equipment.

Consider this...those first explorers to reach the New World had no idea what was truly before them. They had no idea about dangers or diseases...for all they knew, there were sea dragons ready to tear their ships apart.

Also...can archaebacteria (not Eubacteria) infect the human body? Those would be similar to what evolved on Mars, if there is life at all, and archaebacteria on Earth are not virulent towards humans.

Caution is good, but to hold back true long from the goal of space keeps humanity from achieving its true destiny, keeps us from bridging the gap between these two worlds.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-09 00:28:04

Personally, I will only continue to support the MS if it supports a ruthless colonization and terraformation of Mars.
*Hi. Are you a registered, dues-paying member of the Mars Society? I am, for 2-1/4 years now. If your answer is "no," then how do you perceive yourself as "supporting" the Mars Society? I mean -other than- via words (i.e., registering at this forum and sharing your views -- which you are certainly entitled to do, of course)?
It seems that (pardon me if I'm in error) you are framing your statements within the context of membership. I'd prefer only actual members do that, especially when it comes to the sometimes "touchy" topic of terraforming.
And in my opinion, "ruthless" measures by humans (throughout history, irregardless of geographical location or race) usually if not always leads to misery and failure.
--Cindy

Isn't she adorable?

Milady, you are as poignant as always.

Hazer · 2003-12-05 13:13:15

Zubrin isn't vile. he might be wrong sometimes-but he has a good vision. The problem with visionaries is that sometimes they become so focused on the vision-that they forget things around them...

jadeheart · 2003-12-05 13:57:08

this is probably the most interesting thread i've come across in the short time i've been a new mars (& mars society) member. some great posts here. i might add a couple of points:

if you have read Dr. Z's "entering space", you'll remember that he advocates leaving alone worlds with evolutionary potential. but (and i certainly am not trying to put words in his mouth) a world hosting only microbes does not necessarily constitute a world with evolutionary potential-- in that, according to "entering space", the assumption is made that these microbes may be essentially ubiquitous, permeating the galaxy. since life has had several billion years to get going on mars, if it has not progressed beyond the microbial stage it's likely that it never will without our help. this is, i believe, the underpinning of his stance on this issue.

secondly, in my opinion, mars represents a chance to redeem ourselves for all our past bungling and brutality. it's a chance to apply what we've learned from our checkered history and see if we can do things better this time. i still have my doubts, but mars has no indigenous people and (probably) no complex life forms that will suffer if we still haven't learned the moral & ethical lessons of our past.

as has been said, mars will be a measure of how far we've come-- technologically, morally, socially, etc. but it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make this measurement if we don't make the attempt on mars.

Spider-Man · 2003-12-08 23:14:56

Your comments are wholly refreshing, well-reasoned, and justified, Jadeheart. Well put; I hope to read more from you (if I ever get the time). (You might want to consider capitilizations though, by the way, for easier reading.)

jadeheart · 2003-12-09 12:59:56

capitalization... argh.. all those extra keystrokes hitting the cursed SHIFT key!

But i'll give it a try.

evilcitizen · 2005-09-18 22:10:32

I just read the Case for Mars last month and it really changed my perspective: I've always been interested in space exploration in theory, but I'm very cynical about NASA and all of its waste and, until recently, lack of direction.

Reading the Case for Mars really re-energised my enthusiasm and I'd like to thank Zubrin for that one day.

However, I must agree that Zubrin' book has some serious American-style "explorer" mentality bias. I don't agree with the original poster that Zubrin should step down or anything, but I think Zubrin needs to be able to handle potential criticisms in that area if the Mars Society expects to sell the Mars missions to the public at large.

As someone who is not American, I can tell you that part of me really recoiled reading Zubrin's "frontier" justification for exploring Mars. The problem is not what he wants to do, I just think he should not use American-style metaphors if he expects to appeal to anyone outside the US and/or people in the US who are sensitive to those kind of justifications.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-09-02 02:00:17

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#2 2003-09-02 06:24:34

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#3 2003-09-02 07:37:48

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#4 2003-09-02 09:38:54

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#5 2003-09-02 11:43:52

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#6 2003-09-02 13:05:56

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#7 2003-09-02 15:13:43

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#8 2003-09-02 22:00:49

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#9 2003-09-03 00:11:50

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#10 2003-09-03 08:28:28

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#11 2003-09-03 09:40:44

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#12 2003-09-03 10:44:49

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#13 2003-09-05 09:56:53

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#14 2003-09-05 22:29:02

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#15 2003-09-07 07:51:05

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#16 2003-09-08 11:39:58

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#17 2003-09-08 17:18:10

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#18 2003-09-08 18:19:41

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#19 2003-09-08 23:01:09

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#20 2003-09-09 00:28:04

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#21 2003-12-05 13:13:15

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#22 2003-12-05 13:57:08

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#23 2003-12-08 23:14:56

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#24 2003-12-09 12:59:56

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

#25 2005-09-18 22:10:32

Re: Zubrin's Vile Ideology - Should He Still Be MS Leader?

Board footer