What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

Palomar · 2002-06-05 16:52:17

Some thoughts which have been rolling around in my cranium today:

1. The first explorers and colonists to Mars will most likely be funded via only one government; or, at the very most, primarily by one gov't, with perhaps 1 or 2 other gov'ts pitching in for funding.

2. Corporations have the most political influence in US gov't -- and yes, I know that's a tremendous understatement! If the USA sends the first explorers and colonists to Mars, they will naturally be dependent upon our gov't, its ways, and the corporate sponsors (read: bullies) behind the US gov't (I'm a US citizen myself, please know).

3. Following this scenario further: The colonists will be dependent upon the USA gov't and its corporate sponsors. This will be "fine" with the colonists (who will continue to need certain services/goods from Earth) until such time as they are capable of absolute independence.

4. During which time perhaps another nation or two has sent explorers and successfully colonized. As needs and wants on Mars will be essentially limited to basic survival necessities, there will be a great level of cooperation between the nationalities now present on Mars. The absence of armies, coupled with politicians being hundreds of thousands of miles away, probably ensures further goodwill and cooperation between settlers operating under different govt's.

5. At some point -- with enough congeniality between the Marsian colonists, a bit of the natural friction which comes about as a result of cultural differences, and the fact that they are all getting pretty sick and tired of obeying their respective govt's and the corporate sponsors (read: bullies) in the mix -- they unite to form their own gov't, a situation very similar to what occurred in the American colonies in 1776...sans muskets and war ships, of course. Chances are good their own declaration of independence will combine the best qualities of their original respective gov'ts.

6. A new political system and society is truly born on Mars. Obviously we cannot know what it will be comprised of/entail, but again I'm presuming it'll be composed out of the best and most workable elements of their native gov't systems -or- known systems/political theories.

And hopefully they'll keep in the mind the sentiment of Thomas Paine when he stated that not since the time of the Great Flood had there been a chance to make the world over anew. Marsian colonization will indeed be *the* chance for humankind to get the ultimate "makeover."

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-06 11:04:53

The first explorers and colonists to Mars will most likely be funded via only one government.

Explorers, maybe. Colonists, no. To be a colony you must be able to survive without relying on your nation of origin, in my opinion.

Lately I have been following China's progress into space. Unfortunately, I've learnt that they're not as ?great? as I'd thought. It was my misguided belief that there was a good possiblity of a US / China race to Mars in the same spirit of the US / USSR race to Luna within a decade. But I don't see that happening now.

Gah, I get my hopes up sometimes.

Corporations have the most political influence in US gov't -- and yes, I know that's a tremendous understatement! If the USA sends the first explorers and colonists to Mars, they will naturally be dependent upon our gov't, its ways, and the corporate sponsors (read: bullies) behind the US gov't (I'm a US citizen myself, please know).

I'm not trying to be picky here, ecrasez_l_infame. But if they're dependant, they're not a colony. I've discussed this same thing with clark before.

I agree, however, that if the first missions were corporate sponsered, it would be in the sponsers best interest to create a dependency. But that dependency must be inherently physical. In the same way those in the ISS need supplies to survive. If it's not, what is keeping the sponsered from cutting all ties to the sponsers?

The colonists will be dependent upon the USA gov't and its corporate sponsors. This will be "fine" with the colonists (who will continue to need certain services/goods from Earth) until such time as they are capable of absolute independence.

I would personally consider it a suicide mission to constantly rely on Earth to survive. This is why I believe that independence for the Martian colonists will be created fairly quickly.

What more do they need than the ablity to create their own stuff? Mars has all the necessary elements. The question is whether or not the sponsers will let them have that ablity.

In the spirit of the first American colonists, I believe that the first ?real? Martian colonists will be people who either hitch a ride to Mars, or build their own ship. And they will be the one who really establish Martian politics.

The absence of armies, coupled with politicians being hundreds of thousands of miles away, probably ensures further goodwill and cooperation between settlers operating under different govt's.

I agree that Martian colonists will cooperate. But there is still the possiblity of ?Space Property Appropriation.? Where a government sends their thugs to make sure things go the way they want. Just like Britian wanted to control America.

[...] the fact that they are all getting pretty sick and tired of obeying their respective governments and the corporate sponsors [...] they unite to form their own government, a situation very similar to what occurred in the American colonies in 1776... sans muskets and war ships, of course [...] their own declaration of independence will combine the best qualities of their original respective governments

Ah, good summation.

But how do you know it will take place sans muskets and war ships?

I'm presuming [the Martian government will] be composed out of the best and most workable elements of their native government systems -or- known systems/political theories.

Totally agree. Starting first with the abolishment of property.

clark · 2002-06-07 08:37:25

Okay Cindy, you've set the stage...

1. The first explorers and colonists to Mars will most likely be funded via only one government; or, at the very most, primarily by one gov't, with perhaps 1 or 2 other gov'ts pitching in for funding.

What would be the incentive for earth based governments to send their own population millions of miles away? The historical experience has been one of expansion to relieve social and economic tension- Mars can offer no economic incentive at this point, and the social tension, well, mars enthusisats are not so hard to live with, so it's doubtful that we as a society would want to ship them off.

Following this scenario further: The colonists will be dependent upon the USA gov't and its corporate sponsors. This will be "fine" with the colonists (who will continue to need certain services/goods from Earth) until such time as they are capable of absolute independence.

I've talked about this with Josh before, but this issue of "absolute independance" is a fools dream for space based colonies. When you say ABSOLUTE, you are declaring that there is nothing you need from anyone else (ie Earth). How do you achieve that? Is it in the best interest of the Marsian society to have the basic infrastructure to produce toilet paper? (this is an example, apply to all the basic commodities you take fro granted). Pencils? Pens? Little plastic ball bearings for your bike? Semi-conductor chips? The tools and machines to build the tools and machines that create the "cog"?

Much of our advanced technology is based on Rare Earth Elements- there are only TWO known deposits of any quantity in the world (Nevada and China). How independant can you be if you lack these basic resources? There can be self-sufficency, but no independance for Mars- not unless you terraform and wait several hundred years for all the necessary back-infrastructure to create your rolls of "toilet paper".

The absence of armies, coupled with politicians being hundreds of thousands of miles away, probably ensures further goodwill and cooperation between settlers operating under different govt's.

There is no need for armies- anyone who want to "kill" another colony need only destroy their power supply- barring that, through up small metal balls into the aero-braking window to shred all incoming ships. To really figure out wether or not there is going to conflict you have to examine the reasons and goals of the "colonists"- if their goals are in conflict, there will be conflict. Say one comes to study Mars, another to exploit it- this would cause a bit of tension don't you think?

At some point -- with enough congeniality between the Marsian colonists, a bit of the natural friction which comes about as a result of cultural differences, and the fact that they are all getting pretty sick and tired of obeying their respective govt's and the corporate sponsors
(read: bullies) in the mix

You assume that history would repeat itself- what if the opposite happens and the respective governments look to include their new colonies into the exsisting government structure- 1776 would not have happened if there was equitable representation. Canada and Australia are both proof of that.

Obviously we cannot know what it will be comprised of/entail, but again I'm presuming it'll be composed out of the best and most workable elements of their native gov't systems -or- known systems/political theories.

I feel it would represent the opposite of everything that they felt was wrong with their previous system. Not neccessarily a better form, but one that prevented the previous abuses they perceived in the old government system.

And hopefully they'll keep in the mind the sentiment of Thomas Paine when he stated that not since the time of the Great Flood had there been a chance to make the world over anew.

There is always a chance to make the world over- Alexander the Great, Khan, Cesar, Einstein, Newton, Plato, the Wright Brothers, Columbus, Hitler, FDR, and countless others have all made the world into something new. You don't need Mars for that- to believe so is to believe that Man is incapable without an artifical crutch- we as a species have proven we need nothing more than our mind to succeed.

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-07 13:36:50

What would be the incentive for earth based governments to send their own population millions of miles away? The historical experience has been one of expansion to relieve social and economic tension.

She wasn't talking about sending a huge population, she was talking about sending scientists. Whether or not she is talking Red Mars-style stuff, I'm not sure... but still. It's not that hard to imagine a government sending scientists to Mars permanently. China wants to do that very thing by 2050.

I've talked about this with Josh before, but this issue of "absolute independance" is a fools dream for space based colonies.

I guess the Declaration of Independence was a dream too. It never happened. The Boston Tea Party was a figment of our collective imaginations, we're actually being controlled by the Queen!

I wish you would qualify how one can't be self sufficient. You never actually told me how countries like Saudia Arabia are better off selling their oil for food rather than saving some and building biospheres... c'mon...

How do you achieve [absolute independence]?

You allow yourself to evolve culturally. See, the real reason Saudi Arabia won't build their biospheres is simple; they're too dang stubborn (or naive) to let their society change culturally. They have to keep their people oppressed, because a book written by a figment decrees that they do.

So when you ask how you have pens on Mars. Well, think about the answer. It's easy. You don't. You don't have pens, dangit!

Ooh, a culture without pens. Scary.

There can be self-sufficency, but no independance for Mars- not unless you terraform and wait several hundred years for all the necessary back-infrastructure to create your rolls of "toilet paper".

Of course not. We can't exist the same way culturally on Mars. Going to Mars irrevocably requires that you change culturally.

Americans stopped drinking tea, didn't they? I'm sure Britain thought, ?Oh! Americans will always drink tea, they simply cannot exist without it!?

I feel it would represent the opposite of everything that they felt was wrong with their previous system. Not neccessarily a better form, but one that prevented the previous abuses they perceived in the old government system.

Totally agree. You know, I love these momments.

You don't need Mars for that- to believe so is to believe that Man is incapable without an artifical crutch- we as a species have proven we need nothing more than our mind to succeed.

Ah, I totally agree. But like I said in the other thread... no other place gives us the cultural opportunity Mars does. I mean, where else in the world are you going to find a whole society of people who don't use pens or toilet paper?

Palomar · 2002-06-07 13:47:54

First of all...please note (again) that I entitled this topic "What If --?" These were thoughts which came to mind, and I didn't mean to imply I think the course of events I outlined WILL happen (but just might)...

Josh wrote: "I'm not trying to be picky here, ecrasez_l_infame. But if they're dependant, they're not a colony. I've discussed this same thing with clark before."

*Please call me by my first name -- Cindy. I agree -- semantics got in the way of my post, apparently.

I agree, however, that if the first missions were corporate sponsered, it would be in the sponsers best interest to create a dependency.

*Oh yes. And the sponsors will do their utmost to maintain a dependency.

I wrote: "The absence of armies, coupled with politicians being hundreds of thousands of miles away, probably ensures further goodwill and cooperation between settlers operating under different govt's."

Josh wrote: "I agree that Martian colonists will cooperate. But there is still the possiblity of ?Space Property Appropriation.? Where a government sends their thugs to make sure things go the way they want. Just like Britian wanted to control America."

*Yes, there's a possibility -- but a remote one, IMO. It's going to be difficult enough getting explorers, then settlers there to begin with. This isn't a matter of simply crossing an ocean or walking across an invisible boundary on the ground.

I wrote: "[...] the fact that they are all getting pretty sick and tired of obeying their respective governments and the corporate sponsors [...] they unite to form their own government, a situation very similar to what occurred in the American colonies in 1776... sans muskets and war ships, of course [...] their own declaration of independence will combine the best qualities of their original respective governments."

Josh wrote: "Ah, good summation.

But how do you know it will take place sans muskets and war ships?"

*Practicality. There may be weapons on Mars, if taken by the first group(s) of persons there. But war ships -- ? Considering the cost and energy expenditure to get even a crew of 4 there, time allottment, etc.,...I don't think war ships from Earth will be a threat to Marsians for a very long time, if ever.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-06-07 14:09:57

Whether or not she is talking Red Mars-style stuff, I'm not sure... but still. It's not that hard to imagine a government sending scientists to Mars permanently.

Then this is a moot issue. If all we can discuss are scientits going to Mars, then what role is there for any kind of independant Mars? The people going go simply to serve the interest of Earth- that is their mission, their goal, and nothing more. If they send them only for science, then how many would they send? You would end up with something like Antartica and there would be very little development toward independance ever becuase there would be no need for it.

I guess the Declaration of Independence was a dream too. It never happened. The Boston Tea Party was a figment of our collective imaginations, we're actually being controlled by the Queen!

Sigh. You are purposly missing my point. Declaring independance and being independant are two different things. Even after declaring independance, the colonies lacked certain manufactured goods that could only be obtained from over seas. Yes, they had the means with which to obtain those goods, but they were not totally independant. The problem with Martian independance is that say a bunch of US colonists on Mars revolt- but then they need key products from Earth- the US government then imposes a blockade preventing any of those goods from reaching mars by threatening all earth based nations with economic or military reprisals for aiding the colonists. The colonists are up-shit creek without a paddle now.

Saudia Arabia are better off selling their oil for food rather than saving some and building biospheres... c'mon...

They sell their oil for currency which can be used to provide resources they lack- those resources are then funneled back into the system to maintain the status quo (Saudi Arabia gives a lot of State subsidies to its people). You are also being rather arrogant by assuming that the Western example of life is superior to what they enjoy- there is nothing wrong with not advancing technologicaly if they are happy.

You allow yourself to evolve culturally. See, the real reason Saudi Arabia won't build their biospheres is simple; they're too dang stubborn (or naive) to let their society change culturally.

The German "evolved" culturally prior to 1939 and we all live with the results to this day. Don't assume any culture is inherently better than any other.

o when you ask how you have pens on Mars. Well, think about the answer. It's easy. You don't. You don't have pens, dangit!

You point out the obvious but offer NOTHING for the more pertinant examples I provide: Semi conductors, micro-processors, rare rearth elements, exotic alloys and plastics, chemical plants- the tools to build the tools to make all of these advanced components neccessary to live in vacum.

Ooh, a culture without pens. Scary.

Ooh, a culture without the ability to make space suits capable of withstanding vacum, that live in vacum. Scary.

Americans stopped drinking tea, didn't they? I'm sure Britain thought, ?Oh! Americans will always drink tea, they simply cannot exist without it!?

You can't exsist without air, what will you do when the last carbon scrubber fails and you lack the means to repair or replace it?

Totally agree. You know, I love these momments.

As do I, I mean, it's just sad to see someone so obviously smart take the wrong side of every argument all the time.

I mean, where else in the world are you going to find a whole society of people who
don't use pens or toilet paper?

South American tribes.

Palomar · 2002-06-07 14:27:55

Clark wrote: "Okay Cindy, you've set the stage..."

*Yup. And keep in mind that I entitled the topic "What If --?"

I wrote: "The first explorers and colonists to Mars will most likely be funded via only one government; or, at the very most, primarily by one gov't, with perhaps 1 or 2 other gov'ts pitching in for funding."

Clark wrote: "What would be the incentive for earth based governments to send their own population millions of miles away?"

*Where is this coming from?

"The historical experience has been one of expansion to relieve social and economic tension- Mars can offer no economic incentive at this point, and the social tension, well, mars enthusisats are not so hard to live with, so it's doubtful that we as a society would want to ship them off."

*I feel you are taking my statement out of context, and running with it. There are a few nations which hope to send persons to Mars, for exploration purposes. I doubt these few nations have it in mind to send hundreds of people. As for what is the -incentive- for the USA, Russia, and a few European nations to want to send explorers to Mars, I'm not sure.

I wrote: "Following this scenario further: The colonists will be dependent upon the USA gov't and its corporate sponsors. This will be "fine" with the colonists (who will continue to need certain services/goods from Earth) until such time as they are capable of absolute independence."

Clark wrote: "I've talked about this with Josh before, but this issue of "absolute independance" is a fools dream for space based colonies. When you say ABSOLUTE, you are declaring that there is nothing you need from anyone else (ie Earth). How do you achieve that? Is it in the best interest of the Marsian society to have the basic infrastructure to produce toilet paper? (this is an example, apply to all the basic commodities you take fro granted). Pencils? Pens? Little plastic ball bearings for your bike? Semi-conductor chips? The tools and machines to build the tools and machines that create the "cog"?"

*I wrote (refer back to it, please) ::until such time:: as they are capable of absolute independence. That may take generations; however, I think they'd be wise to try for absolute independence. It seems you are suggesting that Marsian colonists can never be totally independent from Earth? If so, why can't they? I don't see anything foolish about this; America didn't need England after a certain amount of time had passed and self-sufficiency was permanently in place.

I wrote: "The absence of armies, coupled with politicians being hundreds of thousands of miles away, probably ensures further goodwill and cooperation between settlers operating under different govt's."

Clark wrote: "There is no need for armies- anyone who want to "kill" another colony need only destroy their power supply- barring that, through up small metal balls into the aero-braking window to shred all incoming ships. To really figure out wether or not there is going to conflict you have to examine the reasons and goals of the "colonists"- if their goals are in conflict, there will be conflict. Say one comes to study Mars, another to exploit it- this would cause a bit of tension don't you think?

*Tsk, tsk. You are tending to pessimism again! There will always be chances of tension, when we're speaking of humans.

I wrote: "At some point -- with enough congeniality between the Marsian colonists, a bit of the natural friction which comes about as a result of cultural differences, and the fact that they are all getting pretty sick and tired of obeying their respective govt's and the corporate sponsors
(read: bullies) in the mix."

Clark wrote: "You assume that history would repeat itself-

*It could repeat itself. Again, I did name this topic "What If -- ?" (speculation).

what if the opposite happens and the respective governments look to include their new colonies into the exsisting government structure- 1776 would not have happened if there was equitable representation. Canada and Australia are both proof of that.

*Mmm-hmmmm. No offense to any Canadians or Australians who might be present, but it's a fact that the USA out-distanced them in terms of productivity, inventiveness, etc. The USA has been, for quite a long time, much more successful and wealthy than either of these other two nations. Are you promoting dependency, by the way?

I wrote: "And hopefully they'll keep in the mind the sentiment of Thomas Paine when he stated that not since the time of the Great Flood had there been a chance to make the world over anew."

Clark wrote: "There is always a chance to make the world over- Alexander the Great, Khan, Cesar, Einstein, Newton, Plato, the Wright Brothers, Columbus, Hitler, FDR, and countless others have all made the world into something new.

*Not really; not in the sense I'm using that phrase, anyhow. They changed things -- they didn't make the world anew.

Clark wrote: "You don't need Mars for that- to believe so is to believe that Man is incapable without an artifical crutch-

*True. However, mankind on Earth is, IMO, so smothered by convention, social expectations, old prejudices, old superstitions, rehashed hatreds, etc., that an ::attempt:: at a "clean break" is long overdue. Look at how long the Israelis and Palestinians have been "going at it;" that's probably not going to stop anytime soon. Look at how many wars are fought over something so stupid as "the non-believers of my religion step foot on my nation's soil, the filthy infidels." There's too much ingrained, conditioned irrationality on Earth, that a "world anew" here -- especially with no new frontiers on Earth to discover and explore (as Dr. Zubrin stated) anymore -- is nearly impossible at this point in time.

Clark wrote: " we as a species have proven we need nothing more than our mind to succeed."

*True. But the trouble is that many people don't use their minds; they don't THINK BEFORE they act. I hope, on Mars, to see people dropping labels such as "my nationality is , my race is , my ethnicity is ," and use this opportunity to truly and most effectively discover the greatest level of HUMAN achievement and potential. It is, as Dr. Zubrin said, the last frontier we've got. I'd like to see the settlers/colonists/whatever drop as many of the old, worn-out prejudices and labels as possible, and create a very new world for themselves, in every manner possible.

Call me a fool with a dream if you like -- but these are my hopes and aspirations.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-06-07 15:08:58

I would like to point out that you are replacing an old prejudice with a new one- ie, a predjuice against the old ways of earth

I'd like to see the settlers/colonists/whatever drop as many of the old, worn-out prejudices and labels as possible, and create a very new world for themselves, in every manner possible.

Deconstruction Cindy, you can have no center.

It seems you are suggesting that Marsian colonists can never be totally independent
from Earth? If so, why can't they?

They can- it is a matter of time and resources. I guess I am assuming certain time-lines that you do not neccessarily see or agree with. If this is an issue that resolves itself in several generations, then how can we discuss it intelligently? Any assumptiions beyond 50 years (and that's pushing it) is bound to be exceedingly inaccurate.

Look at the predictions of 2000 made in 1950 for a better understanding.

Mmm-hmmmm. No offense to any Canadians or Australians who might be present, but it's a fact that the USA out-distanced them in terms of productivity, inventiveness, etc. The USA has been, for quite a long time, much more successful and wealthy than either of these other two nations.

This is a matter or resources, livable land, and a host of other reasons NOT related to being or not being subjects of England. C'mon Cindy, you should know better.

Are you promoting dependency, by the way?

I'm supporting honesty. Sorry to burst yours and others bubble, but its hard to be independant in a wasteland of vacum.

Not really; not in the sense I'm using that phrase, anyhow. They changed things -- they didn't make the world anew.

How do you imagine that Humans going to Mars, taking all of their glory and all of their problems, will NOT repeat human folly on mars? If humans are fundamentaly the same, but now they live on "mars", won't they just fight over something else, instead of the old terran disputes?

Look at how long the Israelis and Palestinians have been "going at it;" that's probably not going to stop anytime soon.

Isn't it possible you may be over-simplifying the problems between humans? ALL conflicts have been the result of resource control and distribution. ALL. Religion and other concepts are used as an exscuse to mobilize more people to get control of the resources. Going to Mars will be no different, eventually conflict will arise due to resource control and distribution.

Watch in the next 25 years as "water wars" begin. It will not be pretty.

here's too much ingrained, conditioned irrationality on Earth, that a "world anew"
here -- especially with no new frontiers on Earth to discover and explore (as Dr. Zubrin stated) anymore -- is nearly impossible at this point in time.

If you are unable to see the fronteirs that still exsist, and continue to be created here on Earth, you are blinded by your desire of Mars. A fronteir is subjective and artifical and is no more distant than your own mind. It's a pity that so many on this board are unable to realize what is available in their own backyard.

Palomar · 2002-06-07 15:59:43

Clark wrote: "I would like to point out that you are replacing an old prejudice with a new one- ie, a predjuice against the old ways of earth."

*No. "Prejudice" means to "pre-judge." I haven't pre-judged the old ways of Earth in regards to genocide, inquisitions, slavery, superstition, etc. There is no pre-judgment on my part; these things have happened, are documented, and continue to happen. If ::part of:: the point of colonizing Mars does not include trying to break away and leave behind these old habits, what's the point? If persons from Earth will only go to re-establish and continue destructive and irrational patterns of behavior so ingrained here on Earth, why bother going to Mars?

I wrote: "I'd like to see the settlers/colonists/whatever drop as many of the old, worn-out prejudices and labels as possible, and create a very new world for themselves, in every manner possible."

Clark wrote: Deconstruction Cindy, you can have no center.

*Explain, please. I don't know what you intend with this statement.

I wrote: "It seems you are suggesting that Marsian colonists can never be totally independent from Earth? If so, why can't they?

Clark wrote: They can- it is a matter of time and resources. I guess I am assuming certain time-lines that you do not neccessarily see or agree with. If this is an issue that resolves itself in several generations, then how can we discuss it intelligently? Any assumptiions beyond 50 years (and that's pushing it) is bound to be exceedingly inaccurate.

Look at the predictions of 2000 made in 1950 for a better understanding.

*I understand your point, and agree. I didn't set a time limit, btw.

I wrote: "Mmm-hmmmm. No offense to any Canadians or Australians who might be present, but it's a fact that the USA out-distanced them in terms of productivity, inventiveness, etc. The USA has been, for quite a long time, much more successful and wealthy than either of these other two nations."

Clark wrote: "This is a matter or resources, livable land, and a host of other reasons NOT related to being or not being subjects of England.

*Yes, that's some of it -- ::some:: of it.

Clark: "C'mon Cindy, you should know better."

*Are you making this "canned statement" only because I disagree with you? Condescension is the best defense?

I wrote: "Are you promoting dependency, by the way?"

Clark wrote: "I'm supporting honesty. Sorry to burst yours and others bubble, but its hard to be independant in a wasteland of vacum."

*It may be hard to be independent in a "wasteland of a vacuum," but I notice you didn't use the word "impossible" here. It is something Marsian colonists should always have at the forefront of their consciousness, and they should always strive for independence, or as much of it as possible.

I wrote: "Not really; not in the sense I'm using that phrase, anyhow. They changed things -- they didn't make the world anew."

Clark wrote: "How do you imagine that Humans going to Mars, taking all of their glory and all of their problems, will NOT repeat human folly on mars? If humans are fundamentaly the same, but now they live on "mars", won't they just fight over something else, instead of the old terran disputes?"

*Chances are good that they will repeat the human follies on Mars. I'm hoping they will not. There are so many lessons from history, the writings of great philosophers, etc., that people can try to learn from and take with them. What I'm saying is that they have a ::very real opportunity:: to ::not:: repeat the centuries-old (and tired) mistakes here on Earth.

I wrote: "Look at how long the Israelis and Palestinians have been "going at it;" that's probably not going to stop anytime soon."

Clark wrote: "Isn't it possible you may be over-simplifying the problems between humans? ALL conflicts have been the result of resource control and distribution. ALL. Religion and other concepts are used as an exscuse to mobilize more people to get control of the resources."

*Even the "Holy Inquisition" of the 14th and 15th centuries? While that wasn't technically "a war," it may as well have been. I don't think bin Laden (if he's still alive) gives a hoot about resource control and distribution -- I think there are people, like him, who do want to kill and destroy simply because others disagree with them. Period. Bin Laden is (or was...whichever) wealthy. Why is he bothering with "killing infidels"? Because he's a murderous religious fanatic who wants to kill and destroy only because "infidels" stepped foot on Saudi soil. I agree that most wars are over resource control and distribution...but not all of them.

I wrote: "There's too much ingrained, conditioned irrationality on Earth, that a "world anew" here -- especially with no new frontiers on Earth to discover and explore (as Dr. Zubrin stated) anymore -- is nearly impossible at this point in time."

Clark wrote: "If you are unable to see the fronteirs that still exsist, and continue to be created here on Earth, you are blinded by your desire of Mars. A fronteir is subjective and artifical and is no more distant than your own mind. It's a pity that so many on this board are unable to realize what is available in their own backyard."

*Do you feel this way about Dr. Zubrin as well? Would you make this statement to him personally, as you have to me?

And what is ::your:: reason for wanting to see Mars exploration and colonization? I'm curious.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-07 16:50:42

Then this is a moot issue. If all we can discuss are scientits going to Mars, then what role is there for any kind of independant Mars?

The argument is that such missions would spark more and more interest in Mars. If you have actual colonists going to Mars because they want to, just as American pioneers went to America because they wanted to, you are going to want independence.

Declaring independance and being independant are two different things.

I beg to differ. The second we declared independence, we were at a point where, if those who didn't want to trade with us didn't, we'd be okay. Basically declaring independence means that you get to decide what you need or what you don't. When you declare independence, it is no longer an issue of survivability. It's merely an issue of culture. Yes, Martians will still depend on Earth for, uh, birds nest soup. But they aren't going to depend on Earth for, say, toilet paper (seriously clark, dangit).

But hey, this Martian culture won't need birds nest soup, they'll be too busy inventing their own culture. They'll be making their own traditions! That's the beauty of the frontier...

The problem with Martian independance is that say a bunch of US colonists on Mars revolt- but then they need key products from Earth

The point of independence is, ?Hey, we don't need you anymore!? Sure, we can't grow chocolate or oranges, but we don't need them (to survive), dangit. So if they actually need something (to survive), they're not independent, and declaring independence is suicide.

And I still stand behind my belief that if you depend, from a survivability perspective, on your point of origin, you are not a colony; if independence wasn't necessary for a group to be a colony, we could call any group of people anywhere a colony.

They sell their oil for currency which can be used to provide resources they lack- those resources are then funneled back into the system to maintain the status quo. You are also being rather arrogant by assuming that the Western example of life is superior to what they enjoy- there is nothing wrong with not advancing technologicaly if they are happy.

I can agree with your summation. And I can also agree that there is nothing wrong with not advancing technologically if one is happy. However, I still say is a dang stupid thing to do. I mean, once the oil runs out, what then? They'll be a desert... a desert with only one resource... one resource which is valuable only locally... sunlight. I actually pity them for not seeking long term solutions to their food problems.

Don't assume any culture is inherently better than any other.

I wasn't making that assumption. I was merely saying that some cultures lack long term visiblity do to their inherent blindness.

You point out the obvious but offer NOTHING for the more pertinant examples I provide:

Well, it seems no one has actually addressed these issues. How about, in the coming weeks / months, when the first real GRS report comes in, I will have had written up a way to exploit the various resources they find?

Currently, since the GRS boom wasn't fully deployed, we only have preliminary hydrogen content data, nothing else. Soon we'll know, with astonishing accuracy, where everything from aluminum to uranium is.

The question you should be asking yourself, though, is whether or not it's possible. You make it seem like it's not. Well, if I show you how it would be, will you chance your stance?

Ooh, a culture without the ability to make space suits capable of withstanding vacum, that live in vacum. Scary.

You know I wasn't saying that clark.

You can't exsist without air, what will you do when the last carbon scrubber fails and you lack the means to repair or replace it?

Die. That's why you have to have the ablity to replace it. That's why you certainly need indepdendence.

Man, these long responses drain me. Everyone better catch SG1 and Farscape tonight! Can't wait.

Palomar · 2002-06-08 11:11:51

Josh: "Ooh, a culture without pens. Scary."

Clark: "Ooh, a culture without the ability to make space suits capable of withstanding vacum, that live in vacum. Scary."

Josh: "Americans stopped drinking tea, didn't they? I'm sure Britain thought, 'Oh! Americans will always drink tea, they simply cannot exist without it!'"

Clark: "You can't exsist without air, what will you do when the last carbon scrubber fails and you lack the means to repair or replace it?"

*Actually, if push comes to shove where the rebelling colonists are involved, I think they may still have an ace up their sleeve. For the sake of argument, let's say we have 200 Marsian settlers in the year 2202, from various national origins, who are bent on rebellion and becoming a colony. They are, for the most part, independent -- but still not completely independent; they still need carbon scrubbers from Earth...but that only.

What are the chances that the powers-that-be on Earth would allow them to suffocate to death and not send them more scrubbers? Sure, some malicious persons in power might like to see them die for their rebellion...but chances are good many more Earthlings will *not* stand idly by and allow the rebel Marsians to suffocate, and will be yelling, protesting, maybe even rioting in order to get the Marsians those carbon scrubbers. No one nation of origin or one corporation is going to want to look like The Bad Guy Who Let The Marsians Suffocate...and there will be enough pressure and counter-pressure between nations and/or corporations to *not* allow this to happen, that the scrubbers will get sent to Mars anyway.

Is this a possible scenario? I think so.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

"Mars or Bust, Baby"

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-08 14:22:25

No one nation of origin or one corporation is going to want to look like The Bad Guy Who Let The Marsians Suffocate...and there will be enough pressure and counter-pressure between nations and/or corporations to *not* allow this to happen, that the scrubbers will get sent to Mars anyway.

Totally feasible. But it would be in their best interests to send more officals along to insure that the supplies are ?used properly,? etc. These new guys have faster rovers (technology has gotten better, obviously), and nice new GPS equipment (the GPS satellites werent even there when you went), so any new supply shipments will be controlled by these new ?Welfare Officals.? Since they admittedly have better technology, they would have the legitimacy they need to control the resources.

There went your independence.

So it's not really wise to say, ?We're independent.? without being able to back it up. The US sure did back it up, didn't we?

clark · 2002-06-10 11:46:14

If persons from Earth will only go to re-establish and continue destructive and irrational patterns of behavior so ingrained here on Earth, why bother going to Mars?

One person's irrational behavior is anothers legitimate means to express their will. It is subjective.

Clark wrote: Deconstruction Cindy, you can have no center.
*Explain, please. I don't know what you intend with this statement.

Deconstruction is a philosphical system of thought, the basic premise is that when you validate anything, you do so by exluding and invalidating everything else. If you say this is "good" it neccessarily implies that anything not exactly like that thing is "bad". In order to have a majority, you force the creation of a minority- in this case, deciding a certain behavior is irrational implies that there is other behavior that is completely rational- the act of which makes a subjective and artifical judgment seem to have more validity then it really has.

*I understand your point, and agree. I didn't set a time limit, btw.

Would it be worthwhile to establish one?

Clark wrote: "This is a matter or resources, livable land, and a host of other reasons NOT related to being or not being subjects of England.
*Yes, that's some of it -- ::some:: of it.

No, that is all of it. America's preeminence in the world is the DIRECT result of our geographical location and the resources available here.

Clark: "C'mon Cindy, you should know better."
*Are you making this "canned statement" only because I disagree with you? Condescension is the best defense?

LOL, not trying to condescend, but I am begining to build some expectations from you- Maybe I take for granted certain information and reasoning that I belive you "should" understand- in this insatnce, understanding the role of governments and the role of resources in relation to the predominance of the US.

*It may be hard to be independent in a "wasteland of a vacuum," but I notice you didn't use the word "impossible" here. It is something Marsian colonists should always have at the forefront of their consciousness, and they should always strive for independence, or as much of it as possible.

Impossible is a word to be used sparingly- impossible is only something that hasn't been done..yet.

I wonder what you state that the colonists should have independance on their mind, yet later you suggest that the colonists can expect that humans on earth will guareente that the Martians receive the neccessary items they need for survival- a seeming disparity.

Even the "Holy Inquisition" of the 14th and 15th centuries? While that wasn't technically "a war," it may as well have been.

And how did the inquisition begin? It was begun by King Phillip (Bill White will no doubt correct me if I am wrong) to reunite the Chrisitan faith back into the Catholic fold. It was about resources and control- to prevent the fragmentation of the catholic power base and King Phillip's kingdom as well. There was a lot to it, but resources, as always, was the real reason.

I don't think bin Laden (if he's still alive) gives a hoot about resource control and distribution --

Yes, he does. He is calling for the establishment of a Caliph, an Islamic state. He is calling for the overthrow of the Saudi government, and he and his followers also call for preventing the distribution of oil to non-islamic states. You should try to see through the rehetoric- it's like saying we went to save Kuwait in Desert Storm... it was, is, and continues to be about resources, even if our leaders say it's for democracy and freedom- you see, people in power use the instutions (ideas and beliefs) that will unite the will of individuals to overcome others.

Because he's a murderous religious fanatic who wants to kill and destroy only because "infidels" stepped foot on Saudi soil.

No, there is more to it, and you should educate yourself. "Terroists" stepped foot on our soil and now we feel justified in killing and destroying anyone anywhere- it's all a matter of perspective Cindy.

*Do you feel this way about Dr. Zubrin as well? Would you make this statement to him personally, as you have to me?

I feel this way about anyone who thinks that Mars is the end all be all of the "fronteir"- it neccessarily implies that everything else is somehow less, and I am unwilling to accept that. It's fine to claim that Mars is great, but you must also allow that there are other opportunites of similar magnitude available here on Earth- if you don't, then you are implicity stating that everyone else that disagree's with your point of view is wrong.

And what is ::your:: reason for wanting to see Mars exploration and colonization?

Just selfish motives really- but the real reason is that it pushes the boundaries of humanities reach. Eventually the current nations of the world will fail. Eventually we will descend into the abyss, like we have in the historical past, and we will once again have to relearn how to obtain our previous glory- I for one would like to see how far we can reach before we fall again- and I think Mars is a nice goal. However, I am willing to admit that my desire is not grounded in what is practical, and that it is also no more valid or "right" than the Amish who think going back to simpler times is the answer.

It's the difference between a person and a fanatic- a fanatic only belives their personal truth, a person believes their personal truth, but accepts it as such. Many people (present compant excluded) deal with the issue of exploration of Mars like fanatics.

If you have actual colonists going to Mars because they want to, just as American pioneers went to America because they wanted to, you are going to want independence.

Josh, America revolted becuase of a lack of responsiveness from King George- if they had been represented, history might have been different. My impression of pioneers was that they merely wanted to start a new life in a land full of opportunity- independance, I belive, was not the reasomn people left everything and everyone they knew.

I beg to differ. The second we declared independence, we were at a point where, if those who didn't want to trade with us didn't, we'd be okay.

This is begining to become a debate about history... I wonder how you reconcile your statement with the historical fact that America desperatly needed France's aid in order to make "independance" work.

But hey, this Martian culture won't need birds nest soup, they'll be too busy inventing their own culture. They'll be making their own traditions!

A tradition of learning to breath in vacum... marvolous.

So if they actually need something (to survive), they're not independent, and declaring independence is suicide.

So then, according to this argument, most of the industrial world is not independant. Mars will never be independant becuase the basic neccessities of life, that allow for a person to survive and be "independant", require a large technological infrastructure, with the manufactured and finished goods neccessary to survive precariously perched at the top. It's a house of cards to easily knocked down- any independance is illusionary.

Take a major metroploitan city for example: It can only be independant and sustainable if the neccessary infrastructure it relies on is operating- if you destory or limit the transportaion system in any way, you affect the ability of the city ot remain independant- denial of trucks prevents medicine and food- people now die- prevention of oil or other power sources on Mars would be even worse. I suppose you could be independant on mars, but it would be so precarious as to really be questionable.

However, I still say is a dang stupid thing to do. I mean, once the oil runs out, what then? They'll be a desert... a desert with only one resource... one resource which is valuable only locally... sunlight.

OR, they will simply be what they were before they had such a valuable resource... there was life before the West.

I was merely saying that some cultures lack long term visiblity do to their inherent blindness.

A matter of perspective- you are judging other cultures by placing certain values derived from your own culture, and stating that these other cultures are deffecient- that is an arrogant attitude, no?

Well, it seems no one has actually addressed these issues. How about, in the coming weeks / months, when the first real GRS report comes in, I will have had written up a way to exploit the various resources they find?

And what of "independance" if some of the neccessary resources are missing from mars?

Well, if I show you how it would be, will you chance your stance?

My stance is what is reasonable and makes sense- so if you provide me a good argument, or a good point, I will change my views to accomdate it. Only a fool does not look at what is offered him. I'm surprised you ask me this, after all, you're one of the few people who have been able to make me reconsider certain beliefs I had.

What are the chances that the powers-that-be on Earth would allow them to suffocate to death and not send them more scrubbers? Sure, some malicious persons in power might like to see them die for their rebellion...but chances are good many more Earthlings will *not* stand idly by and allow the rebel Marsians to suffocate, and will be yelling, protesting, maybe even rioting in order to get the Marsians those carbon scrubbers.

It would be nice to belive that humanity would do this, however, history says otherwise. Look to Iraq- millions of children are dying due to the embargo, how many americans have "rioted" in the streets? Justifications aside, it is a similar situation to the hypothetical Mars scenerio, and it dosen't play out.

Is this a possible scenario? I think so.

Base it on precedent and I will convert, otherwise, you shouln't be so optimitic (dangit).

Bill White · 2002-06-10 13:11:31

No, that is all of it. America's preeminence in the world is the DIRECT result of our geographical location and the resources available here.

Which - if you believe Jared Diamond - was greatly aided by epidemics of smallpox, sphyllis, measles and similiar diseases which eradicated large portions of the native population leaving vast tracts of empty land ready for European colonization.

Luck and the legacy of living with one's livestock. . .

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-10 13:40:00

America revolted becuase of a lack of responsiveness from King George- if they had been represented, history might have been different.

I don't think the sole reason The Declaration of Independence was written up was because King George didn't represent. It was a clash of cultures, if anything.

Given my lax history knowledge, I'll retract the things I said, though. Most of it is simply based on The Declaration of Independence as a whole.

independance, I believe, was not the reason people left everything and everyone they knew

I didn't say it was... there were many motivations... I was just saying that I think independence is something you're going to want. Americans wanted it because they disagreed with the Britian culture, the same way Martians will want it because they'll disagree with Terran cultures. A lot of things change in space, especially with regard to property laws.

This is begining to become a debate about history... I wonder how you reconcile your statement with the historical fact that America desperatly needed France's aid in order to make "independance" work.

Military aid is different, I think. It's not like we didn't have the ablity to exploit our own resources. We basically said, ?Hey, you'll get a piece of the pie if you help us.?

I admit that there were some flaws in what I said, however. The ablity to protect ones resources is important.

A tradition of learning to breath in vacum... marvolous.

It's more than marvolous!

So then, according to this argument, most of the industrial world is not independant.

I would personally say that no, most of the industrial world is not independent. Would you? I think you would say (by your comments about Mars) that no one is independent.

I think independency is possible, however.

Mars will never be independant becuase the basic neccessities of life [...] require a large technological infrastructure [...]

?Never? means forever. Can you really say that?

Anyway, who says ?a large technological infrastrcture? can't be built? I think your primary reason is that it would ?cost too much,? right? Since no one has actually calculated the cost, I think that's bullocks.

I suppose you could be independant on Mars, but it would be so precarious as to really be questionable.

Probably, compared to how we live currently. But of course, I'm sure they said the same thing about American pioneers.

[...] they will simply be what they were before they had such a valuable resource... there was life before the West.

At the loss of how many lives, exactly, clark? There was little life there until exploitation of the oil began.

you are judging other cultures by placing certain values derived from your own culture, and stating that these other cultures are deffecient- that is an arrogant attitude, no?

I'm not taking anything from my own culture. My society is just as wasteful, in fact, my society is the one exploiting their dependency. It's not arrogant to use common sense here.

If anything, I'm judging capitalism.

And what of "independance" if some of the neccessary resources are missing from Mars?

No necessary resources are missing from Mars. In fact, it would be much easier to get at them given that there are no nation boundries and so on to stop us. But everywhere has a limit.

Which kind of brings up a point. The Middle East doesn't have the necessary resources, so they temporarily fix the problem by trading the only valuable resource they have. Eventually their trade resource will run out and everyone will basically die. The Middle East has more people than it can currently support without imports. This is why they need to fix their country by investing in biosphere technology or whatever. And this is why Mars can't be depending on Earth for bare necessities. (For a Martian, ?bare necessities? means a lot of stuff, though. From electronic technology to food facilities. We are in a vaccume millions of miles from home, after all.)

I agree that Mars will have a certain ?luxury dependence? on Earth. Just like Earth will have a luxury dependency on Mars. After all, some Martians will still want to continue the tradition of eating turkey during the holidays, and hey, Terrans would love some Martian paintings or whatever.

My stance is what is reasonable and makes sense- so if you provide me a good argument, or a good point, I will change my views to accomdate it.

Well, bare in mind that I can't really build a regolith hopper to prove to you that it could be done (perhaps someone would after I explain it?). But I can show you how processing the regolith and other resources can be accommodated by AI machinery using basic chemistry.

Hey, all we need is a building to build building builders to build more buildings that build building builders.

Bill White · 2002-06-10 13:40:24

So if they actually need something (to survive), they're not independent, and declaring independence is suicide.

Josh - why are you so eager to return to subsistence agriculture? Do you not believe that "No man/woman is an island?"

Throughout history, those people / cities / nations which engaged in trade were wealthier - far wealthier - than those that did not. Without trade, where will your microchips come from? Intel spends billions on a Pentium factory and scraps the tooling a few years later. How can a "self sufficient" Mars settlement compete without a Pentium 5, 7 or 9?

And, it seems obvious, at least IMHO, that in a technological environment wealth equals military power. This trend will only accelerate.

How will your property-less settlement based on subsistence agriculture long survive, except at the indulgence of the powerful?

Bill White · 2002-06-10 14:09:41

Which kind of brings up a point. The Middle East doesn't have the necessary resources, so they temporarily fix the problem by trading the only valuable resource they have. Eventually their trade resource will run out and everyone will basically die. The Middle East has more people than it can currently support without imports. This is why they need to fix their country by investing in biosphere technology or whatever.

An author I really like is James Kaplan - rather pessimisitic as is clark - but largely accurate IMHO - as is clark

Anyway, Kaplan points out that those Arab countries that largely lack oil reserves such as Turkey and Jordan have created healthier and more stable societies than have the oil rich states. These societies and economies cannot sit around idly and pump wealth from the ground, they have to work at making the pie bigger, not having family feuds about who gets which slice of pie.

bin Laden's war is very much a Saudi family feud concerning which clans will rule the country and control the oil. Much like the families York and Lancaster of the English War of the Roses. Are you of the red or white rose?

9/11 was of the same pattern as Hamas bombings in Israel and radical attacks in India - designed to provoke a western or Hindu attack on "Islam" - hoping for some western or Hindu atrocities - and then seeking to use the ensuing chaos to gain political ascendancy within the Islamic world.

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-10 14:10:10

Why are you so eager to return to subsistence agriculture?

What makes you think it's subsistence agriculture? I'm talking about being efficient, if anything. It would be easier to have the facilities you need on Mars than shipping resources from Earth. There's no doubt about that.

Do you not believe that "No man/woman is an island?"

Well, I do to an extent. But I think if we weren't conditioned to be dependent (and were able to be independent), we would be better individuals.

No one really wants to address the Middle East dilemma I have proposed, I wish someone would. Is there a solution to their problems? Or are we all destined to consume until there's nothing left?

Is it really all that bad to have a society that exists without dependence on another society?

Throughout history, those people / cities / nations which engaged in trade were wealthier - far wealthier - than those that did not.

Totally agree. Trade has brought us where we are right now. I'm not talking about ending trade. I'm talking about ending dependency. The Middle East could still trade their oil if they had biospheres. They wouldn't need to, of course, since they'd be self sufficient. But at least they would have the option to trade or not.

Trade should be optional, not necessary.

Intel spends billions on a Pentium factory and scraps the tooling a few years later. How can a "self sufficient" Mars settlement compete without a Pentium 5, 7 or 9?

They'd use the F-CPU. x86 technology is obsolete.

No, seriously, it's my belief that a Mars settlement would be best off desinging their own chips, and frabraciting them themselves. So you can see that I'm not talking subsistence agriculture; I'm talking independency.

How will your property-less settlement based on subsistence agriculture long survive, except at the indulgence of the powerful?

Given that everyone would have access to everything, there could be no power holders... I think we've been over this. And anyway, I'm not talking about subsistence agriculture.

clark · 2002-06-10 15:07:39

An author I really like is James Kaplan - rather pessimisitic as is clark - but largely accurate IMHO - as is clark

Thank you Bill, if it means anything to you, you are one of the few on this board that I regard highly- even if we have disagreed from time to time.

What makes you think it's subsistence agriculture? I'm talking about being efficient, if anything. It would be easier to have the facilities you need on Mars than shipping resources from Earth.

All true Josh, however, what you are discussing is true independance, which is highly unlikely given the environmental constraints imposed by space. For TRUE independance, you must be able to provide all neccessary resources for the maintence of the individual, i.e. water, air, food, and shelter. ALL of these requirments must be MANUFACTURED. Nothing is free, which also means that POWER itself- energy, becomes a neccessary component for life. All of these manufactured resources are dependant upon high-end technology- you can't take a saw, a hammer, and a knife and go live off the land- you need semiconductors, micro-processors, heat sinks, special alloys, radiation resistant machinces, tempture restitant mateirals... the list goes on. All of which requires a high level of infrastructure just to build the tools neccessary to build the tools that will create the neccessary finsihed product. All of this infrastructue must be created there to withstand the extremes of Mars- we've had hundreds of thousands of years to learn how to live on Earth and get to the point we are now, it all starts over on Mars due to the environmental conditions.

Then there is the question of the neccessary infrastructure in order to obtain your "true independance" and the economic cost associated with it- you talk about effeciency- once again, how effecient is it to have a toilet paper factory on mars (you know what I mean, insert any high-tech gizmo if you prefer)? You have to build the machines, power the machines, operate the machines- all of which cost more becuase it all has to be created on an alien planet hostile to human life- then, with every reduction in launch costs, the effeciency of "doing it yourself" on mars makes less economical sense- it could develop that local mars products wouldn't be able to compete with terrestrial manufactured goods that are shipped in bulk becuase a bean-stalk on earth has made it easy to get into space.

But I think if we weren't conditioned to be dependent (and were able to be independent), we would be better individuals.

Hermits are better people? This is subjective and it flies against human nature- we are social animals- and we are an ADVANCED society built on the idea of specialization which is allowed becuase we are able to build these interdependant communities.

No one really wants to address the Middle East dilemma I have proposed, I wish someone would. Is there a solution to their problems? Or are we all destined to consume until there's nothing left?

In a nutshell, yes. This is actually the only realistic and practical reason for going into space- eventually we will convert most of our usable resources into energy, then heat- leaving us with very little. We feed until there is no more... just like the Sun.

The Middle East could still trade their oil if they had biospheres. They wouldn't need to, of course, since they'd be self sufficient. But at least they would have the option to trade or not.

Look at the situation you describe- a Middle East that DOESN'T need to trade- so then, they would own a valuable commodity which they have no need for, and for which we can offer them nothing whihc they might need. Exactly how are WE in control in this situation as a consumer? They have a product we need, but we can offer them nothing they don't already have- they can set any price since they don't have to sell it in the first place. Trade only works if you have something of value, which is ultimetly determined by the OTHER party in the trade.

No, seriously, it's my belief that a Mars settlement would be best off desinging their own chips, and frabraciting them themselves. So you can see that I'm not talking subsistence agriculture; I'm talking independency.

So then you agree that State funded subsidy programs would be okay on mars to maintain those critical areas neccessary for independance- critical areas would be ANY industry and/or product that is neccessary for life to be maintained on mars. Looks like communism is the ONLY form of government that will work.

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-11 01:15:16

All true Josh, however, what you are discussing is true independance, which is highly unlikely given the environmental constraints imposed by space.

I think ?true independence? is absolutely necessary in space, you want zero or near zero waste; to achieve that you want a way to recycle, everything from water to scrubbers. A Dyson Ring (if you believe one is feasible), would be the perfect example of that.

Ecosystems are natures greatest recyclers. They can go on until the sun stops shining...

I know what you're thinking; to ?minimize waste,? you could send used scrubbers back to Earth to be recycled, but if you thought about it, you'd realize that the energy required to do so, even once, would be enough to build a complete scrubber factory.

<list of requirements>
All of which requires a high level of infrastructure just to build the tools neccessary to build the tools that will create the neccessary finsihed product. All of this infrastructue must be created there to withstand the extremes of Mars- we've had hundreds of thousands of years to learn how to live on Earth and get to the point we are now, it all starts over on Mars due to the environmental conditions.

Why must we start over? How far back is your rewind button going? It's not like we're going back to the stone age (like you seem to imply here- but maybe you're being dramatic like I often am). We have the knowledge to do many many things. From refining ores efficiently, to building massive machines to extract those ores. From creating nuclear power plants that power whole cities, to inventing nuclear batteries that last 100 years. From microprocessor technology capable of computing terraflops of data, to worldwide communication networks able to transfer more data than the whole Library of Congress, instantly. From extremely accurate laser topology to precise GPS. We absolutely have the knowledge (and to a large extent, the actual infrastrcture- it's just not tailored to space) we need.

You have to build the machines, power the machines, operate the machines- all of which cost more becuase it all has to be created on an alien planet hostile to human life- then, with every reduction in launch costs, the effeciency of "doing it yourself" on Mars makes less economical sense- it could develop that local mars products wouldn't be able to compete with terrestrial manufactured goods that are shipped in bulk becuase a bean-stalk on earth has made it easy to get into space.

I find it hard to believe that we could build a ?bean-stalk? economically easier than we could build the necessary infrastrcture on Mars.

The fact that Mars isn't very nice to human life is mostly irrelevant. The cost to get there currently outweighs the cost to build there. Period. The only thing that doesn't exist yet, in its entirety, is the technology. But I'm working on solutions for that (to show the feasibilty of my ideas).

?Josh Direct,? in 2017!

(It's prime (2017), and my age will be prime (41), by then, hehehe.)

Hermits are better people? This is subjective and it flies against human nature- we are social animals- and we are an ADVANCED society built on the idea of specialization which is allowed becuase we are able to build these interdependant communities.

I don't think it's necessarily subjective. I wasn't talking about independent individuals, of course. I was talking about independent societies, or at least, I was saying that that would be a good goal.

Independent societies would consume less than societies which are dependent. What would happen to two societies if they depended on each other and one suddenly stopped depending? One of the societies would collaspe, you admit this. (You also admit that ?dependency? is inherently ?valuable? and that it's in a depending countries best interest to enforce dependency- although you don't admit this directly.)

Since you find merit in historical examples, let me show you something I recently found. Benjamin Franklin, when appealing to France for Military aid ( yes, I've been doing some studying! ), said that, ?The American?s manner of living is in general more simple and less expensive than that of the English. Frugal tables, plain dress, less costly furniture, no equipage for pleasure. An appearance of high living destroys a man?s credit in America. Thus every one has to avoid that appearance.?

It should be no surprise that American culture was much more efficient than other cultures of the time.

In a nutshell, yes [we are destined to consume until there is nothing left]. This is actually the only realistic and practical reason for going into space- eventually we will convert most of our usable resources into energy, then heat- leaving us with very little. We feed until there is no more... just like the Sun.

clark, I respect you very much, as you're the only real philosopher who frequents these forums (Alexander was one for awhile, but he seems to have quit coming), however, I think you're leaving out an important property of the universe.

When I speculate, I do not. In fact, that property is the whole basis for my argument. When Sax said that the sun paid for everything, he was dead on.

The property I'm speaking of, of course, is the Conservation of Energy (and to a lesser extent, entropy).

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.

Using fossil fuels only turns those fuels back into simpler substances (due to the conservation of mass). You could make them again with a little sunlight and a lot of time.

But you're best off designing closed systems which can use external energy to recharge potential energy. The Earths ecosystem is such a system. Of course, a closed system always expends less energy than was applied, but as long as we have the sun, it doesn't matter.

So we can't consume until there is nothing left. It's physically impossible. All we can do is add to the entropy of the universe in the most inefficient way possible.

Capitalism.

Life is crap for the consumers.

Trade only works if you have something of value, which is ultimetly determined by the OTHER party in the trade.

I'm glad you agree that enforcement is necessary to insure that demand exists. I'm glad you also agree that dependency is valuable.

So then you agree that State funded subsidy programs would be okay on mars to maintain those critical areas neccessary for independance

I only agree that property law should be abolished. Whatever way a future society decides to share public property is irrelevant. Personally, I would like to see it done without enforcement; and I think that's possible for a highly evolved technological society.

Especially when they're in a vaccume, necessarily depending on each other (not their origin nation- mind you).

Looks like communism is the ONLY form of government that will work.

Probably. Nothing wrong with socialism.

Anyway, I have to get some sleep, and I can't check this for spelling errors (and I'm sure there are many).

clark · 2002-06-11 09:57:22

I think ?true independence? is absolutely necessary in space, you want zero or near zero waste; to achieve that you want a way to recycle, everything from water to scrubbers.

A recycling effeciency where almost nothing is lost? Not possible. Even the Earth isn't a closed system- it loses resources at a rate that goes unnoticed (mostly) by us. It flies against physics.

Ecosystems are natures greatest recyclers. They can go on until the sun stops shining...

I suggest you grow a plant, but only provide it sunlight, and nothing else- see what happens.
Ecosystems are SYSTEMS of INTERDEPENDANT life that can only thrive by maintaining a balance between the different parts.

I know what you're thinking; to ?minimize waste,? you could send used scrubbers back to Earth to be recycled, but if you thought about it, you'd realize that the energy required to do so, even once, would be enough to build a complete scrubber factory.

In order to build a complete scrubber factory you have to mine all the neccessary minerals in vacum. You have to process all of the resources in vacum. You have to smelt and build in vacum. You have to do all of this with every single part neccessary JUST for the factory- then you have to be able to supply and maintain the scrubber factory with all the neccessary spare parts- which means you have to supply and maintain all of the factories that produce the spare parts that maintain your scrubber factory- then you have to supply and maintain the factory that builds the spare parts for your first factory that is making the spare parts for your scrubber factory, and on to infinity- the cost of all of this is increased becuase of the cost of labor and of maintence and the fact that it is difficult to get advanced materials to Mars.

From refining ores efficiently, to building massive machines to extract those ores.

On our world, under those conditions, with mateiral we are familiar with- none of this is neccessarily true for mars.

From creating nuclear power plants that power whole cities, to inventing nuclear batteries that last 100 years.

Sending a nuclear power plant to Mars is one thing- building one from martian resources is another. I don't think we even have the faintest idea how to do such a thing, do we?

I find it hard to believe that we could build a ?bean-stalk? economically easier than we could build the necessary infrastrcture on Mars.

Why? Resource extraction is cheaper here- larger manufacting base allows for competion and a reduction in prices, and a large labor pool reduces overhead. It is becoming more economical as the technology develops- and as an aside, they need carbon bucky-ball nanotubes for the bean stalk- some are suggesting that quantities in commerical amounts will be available in 10 years (there are several manufacturing companies working on this right now) we will be witness to a new revolution in material science.

The fact that Mars isn't very nice to human life is mostly irrelevant.

No, it is relevant when we are discussing this issue of independance. Independance is predicated on providiing all the neccessities for survival- which is ultimetly dictated by the environment. Eskimos need fur for survival, they couldn't be independant unless they were able to provide that commodity for themselves- however, people living in the tropics don't have the same requirement, so it isn't linked to their survival. In the case of Mars- you have to MANUFACTURE air, water, heat, radiation protection, food, and industiral amounts of uninterruptable power (power failure = death). Now, since you have to manufacture the most basic components of life, you also by neccessity must be sure you can provide and maintain the machines neccessary to manufacture the neccesities of life- all of those machines are finished manufactured goods built from advanced materials and advanced science. So in order to ensure independance, you have to ensure the means by which you provide the neccessities- you have to have the infrastructure, and the infrastructure to support the infrastructure- and so on.

None of this would be an issue if you didn't have the martian environment to deal with- but you do.

Independent societies would consume less than societies which are dependent.

No, they would merely consume their own resources at a rate slightly less, or equal to the creation of the resources- the larger the society, the more resources they would have to provide (to maintain the standard of living).

What would happen to two societies if they depended on each other and one suddenly stopped depending? One of the societies would collaspe, you admit this. (You also admit that ?dependency? is inherently ?valuable? and that it's in a depending countries best interest to enforce dependency- although you don't admit this directly.)

I admit that the best relationship is one where both parties receive something of value from each other, and feel that the trading of resources was equal in value. That is fair, but that dosen't always (if ever) happen. If one group dosen't need anything you have, then the value you offer for their resource will exceed the actual value of the resource itself. How much is a loaf of bread, and why?

?The American?s manner of living is in general more simple and less expensive than that of the English. Frugal tables, plain dress, less costly furniture, no equipage for pleasure. An appearance of high living destroys a man?s credit in America. Thus every one has to avoid that appearance.?

American manner or the living result of Imperialism? America was the back-waters of the world at the time, filled with the social rejects of the time who were little more than cheap labor shipped from their home countries. I'm not sure how this quote, which is rhetoric anyway, helps your point.

You are quoting a man who flew kites in thunder storms...

clark, I respect you very much, as you're the only real philosopher who frequents these forums (Alexander was one for awhile, but he seems to have quit coming), however, I think you're leaving out an important property of the universe.

I respect your point of view, and if it helps, you often allow me to argue myself into a corner... thanks. :0

I don't thinnk I am leaving out an important property of the universe- I am actually pointing one out: Law of thermodynamics, as you pointed out, states that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only changed. Okay, follow that law to the final conclusion- the sun consumes matter which is then converted into energy in the form of light. The light emits heat, a by-product of the in-effeciency of conversion. Eventually the sun will consume all of it's usable matter, and then what will be left? Sure, we can quibble about time scales- but apply the situation to our own circumstances on Earth. WE ARE THE SUN- we consume from the earth, and eventually we are returned back to the earth to continue the process- HOWEVER, when we consume, due to the ineffeciency of converting matter into enegry, we release heat- eventually, we will have lost all of the usable matter to heat dissiapation. Again, the time scales trivialize the importance of this concept- we cannot escape the fact that we will eventually run out of resources to consume- it is not a matter of if, but when. It's not a bad thing that we do this, it's not even something we should try to avoid- it is part of our natural process. It only makes sense to embrace the concept and then look to how we are going to perpetuate this model of survival for as long as possible- only space allows us that opportunity.

I guess, in a nutshell, I'm saying that we need to go into space so we can continue to destroy environments. Looks like boy scouts didn't sink in all that well...

Using fossil fuels only turns those fuels back into simpler substances (due to the conservation of mass). You could make them again with a little sunlight and a lot of time.

No, becuase conversion is not a 100% process- we would lose a substantial amount to waste heat- eventually the "pile" would get smaller and smaller with each subsquent conversion.

All we can do is add to the entropy of the universe in the most inefficient way possible.

That has to be the most complex way I have ever heard someone describe recycling.

I only agree that property law should be abolished.

So then, without property laws, how would artists maintain any right to their work? What if I wanted to sleep in your bed...well, I guess I couldn't since you wouldn't have a bed- no one would. LOL. How do you sell anything without property rights?If I create a roll of toilet paper, what would prevent others from taking it? Even though I created it, I don't "own" it- so anyone can take it.

I think by 2017 you will realize, like the characters in KSR's triology when they revisited the issues of property laws, that their original views were a bit wide eyed and impractical. There will HAVE TO BE a form of law that allows for ownership of "things". Otherwise, grab a rock, and start painting on the cave wall.

And I think that's possible for a highly evolved technological society.

Ah yes, the circle of life is complete.... How is it that the concept of property was a hallmark in our evolution, and now in order to become "highly evolved" we have to give up that concept...
Just teasing ya.

Especially when they're in a vaccume, necessarily depending on each other (not their origin nation- mind you).

I would hope and expect that a Martian society would stress the value of personal RESPONSIBILITY- the understanding of cause and effect and the expectations of individuals as part of the group. No one should HAVE to guard the airlock, because everyone expects, and respects the rules in place that govern the use of the airlock, etc.

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-11 16:38:31

Not possible. Even the Earth isn't a closed system- it loses resources at a rate that goes unnoticed (mostly) by us.

Ah, how? If you're talking about heat, sure. That's the second law of thermodynamics. But mass, nope. The only time we lose mass is when we create nuclear reactions, or when it gets shot into space at escape velocity. Since the sun is our heat source, it shouldn't matter if heat gets lost here on Earth.

Ecosystems are SYSTEMS of INTERDEPENDANT life that can only thrive by maintaining a balance between the different parts.

Totally agree. But this doesn't mean that it costs more to build something on Mars than it would to constantly ship that something there, and that's the point I'm trying to make. Nor does this mean that to colonize Mars you must have an ecosystem that spans the whole inner solar system- such an interdependent ecosystem would be quite costly, and unncecessary.

The brine shrimp in Salt Lake depend on a certian bacteria that thrives off of sunlight. They are a closed system of interdependent creatures. At least, they function as a closed system. They still need us to leave them alone, you could argue.

In order to build a complete scrubber factory you have to mine all the neccessary minerals in vacum.

Shouldn't be a problem, machines work well in vaccumes. Don't forget that we'll be in .34 Gs, so they won't have to be nearly as powerful as on Earth.

You have to process all of the resources in vacum.

That should prove to be a slight challenge, but I do not see why it is beyond the scope of our ablities. I'm looking into it. It'll be interesting to see how molten iron acts in .34 Gs.

You have to smelt and build in vacum.

Well, fortunately, Mars isn't a complete vaccume. On the moon, we would have much bigger problems, since containment would have to be 100%. On Mars, however, we can do everything within ?carbon dioxide / oxygen? atmospheres. So smelting steel would be remarkably easy, at least compared to a true vaccume.

There are really three steps, as you've sort of pointed out.

Gathering.
Refining.
Compiling.

I find it interesting that you go on to say that we need many many parts to build complex objects, and those many many parts must be built in many many places. We could concievably break it down to the chemical level. Metallurgy, plastics, composites, etc. So it's not like we'd need a whole building simply to make a metal screw, in fact, I don't see why it all can't be done in one large processing plant.

I saw this thing on Discovery awhile back, and it discussed the things required to maintain rollercoasters, and theme parks. Did you know the big theme parks actually make their own spare parts? Sure, they probably buy the refined resources from somewhere, but like I said, it's three steps.

The cost of [building inital infrastrcture on Mars] is increased becuase of the cost of labor and of maintence and the fact that it is difficult to get advanced materials to Mars.

Could you qualify that? I mean, cost is determined by how much mass you have to send, right? We could send 50 tons of machinery that could build what we need (I'm being liberal with that number). Or we could send 20-30 tons of stuff for our habitat, and a ton or so of supplies for 5-10 years before the cost would be larger than building the infrastrcture there. That's not very long term, if you ask me.

What you're suggesting is for us to build houses in France, and ship them to America. Or grow all our food in France, and ship it to America.

Sending a nuclear power plant to Mars is one thing- building one from martian resources is another. I don't think we even have the faintest idea how to do such a thing, do we?

We know how to make a nuclear power plant. We just don't quite know or have the experience making them in a near vaccume. Building one on Mars would require that infrastrcture you were talking about, and I'm not denying that. I merely think that infrastrcture could be built with relative ease.

And I'm working on showing you how.

All that is well and good, but I think large scale fullerene structures are futher off than say, AI technology to gather resources to build things for us in a near vaccume.

So in order to ensure independance, you have to ensure the means by which you provide the neccessities- you have to have the infrastructure, and the infrastructure to support the infrastructure- and so on.

I see what you're saying, but I really don't see a difference between going to America with axes, nails, and hammers, and going to Mars with high level technology. Both instances we would be taking our bare necessities, and in both instances we were technologically capable of doing so. I think what you're denying is that we are not technologically capable (or could be, due to economics).

Well, I'll show you in awhile how current technology can get us there. It will be interesting to see your counter-arguments.

I'm not sure how this quote, which is rhetoric anyway, helps your point.
You are quoting a man who flew kites in thunder storms...

when we consume, due to the ineffeciency of converting matter into enegry, we release heat- eventually, we will have lost all of the usable matter to heat dissiapation

Well, the conservation of mass dictates that chemical reactions do not destory or create mass. So, sure, we're releasing heat, but we're merely releasing potential energy. The second law only dictates that potential energy is always less than the inital state. As long as we have the sun, we will have energy.

Mass is only destoryed in exotic reactions, like fission.

Again, the time scales trivialize the importance of this concept- we cannot escape the fact that we will eventually run out of resources to consume- it is not a matter of if, but when.

When the sun runs out, yes, we will have no more energy to exploit.

But we could cover the planet in sky scrapers before then. The ammount of energy the earth recieves from the sun is astronomical. Implementing hydrological plans like Alantropia (damming up the Mediterranean) or The Red Sea Plan (doing the same to the Red Sea) would create mind boggling ammounts of energy. All from the sun.

It's not a bad thing that we [are inefficient], it's not even something we should try to avoid- it is part of our natural process.

Uh huh.

We're not yet at that level where we can use mass efficiently. It's entirely possible to recycle mass 100%, the laws of thermodynamics don't prevent that (if you have N ammount of atoms before a chemical reaction, you will have exactly N ammount of atoms after). They only prevent us from using energy 100%. There is always a loss of energy.

No, becuase conversion is not a 100% process- we would lose a substantial amount to waste heat- eventually the "pile" would get smaller and smaller with each subsquent conversion.

http://bengu-pc2.njit.edu/trp-chem/chem … tter1.html

Considering the ammount of mass lost in chemical reactions, I figure it would take a couple of hundred trillion trillion cycles before it would be something to worry about.

The ammount of energy lost is irrelevant, since our energy comes from the sun.

So then, without property laws, how would artists maintain any right to their work?

Why would artists care? I would appreciate art that was done because someone wanted to do it more than I would appreciate art that was done because it was the most profitable thing to do.

How do you sell anything without property rights? If I create a roll of toilet paper, what would prevent others from taking it?

What is with your fixation on toilet paper?

Read some Proudhon dangit.

There will HAVE TO BE a form of law that allows for ownership of "things".

Yeah, possession; ?I possess this house.? Property, in the capitalistic sense is; ?I own all these houses, even the ones I don't possess.? Truely a selfish, and unnecessary, and inefficient, way to exist.

How is it that the concept of property was a hallmark in our evolution, and now in order to become "highly evolved" we have to give up that concept...

Bah, possession is inherent to being human. Property has done nothing but caused countless wars.

Palomar · 2002-06-11 17:37:27

Me: If persons from Earth will only go to re-establish and continue destructive and irrational patterns of behavior so ingrained here on Earth, why bother going to Mars?

Clark: One person's irrational behavior is anothers legitimate means to express their will. It is subjective.

*Try telling that to Sharon Tate's parents. Or to the families of those who lost loved ones in the WTC 9/11 attack.

Clark: Deconstruction Cindy, you can have no center.

Me: Explain, please. I don't know what you intend with this statement.

Clark: Deconstruction is a philosphical system of thought, the basic premise is that when you validate anything, you do so by exluding and invalidating everything else. If you say this is "good" it neccessarily implies that anything not exactly like that thing is "bad".

*No, not necessarily. You're taking an extremist point of view. This is Jacques Derrida's philosophy, right?

Clark: "In order to have a majority, you force the creation of a minority- "

*"Force" is a strong word. And one needn't necessarily be attempting to create a majority. As an example, let's use our discussion here: I'm not forcing you to interact with me (and I'm not implying you feel that I am -- again, this is an example); I make statements, you react to them of your own choice and volition.

"in this case, deciding a certain behavior is irrational implies that there is other behavior that is completely rational- the act of which makes a subjective and artifical judgment seem to have more validity then it really has."

*I see the point you try to make...and I also see the danger in this philosophy. I do believe child molestation is bad. I do believe vaccinating a pet against rabies is good. I believe forcible rape of a woman is bad. If there is truly no such thing as irrational behavior, by all means let's stop the manufacture of anti-psychotic medications in pharmaceutical companies; let's totally scrap and throw out all laws, courts, jails, policemen, etc. According to the philosophy you quote, nothing is irrational -- hence, nothing is wrong, nothing can be a crime against humanity; there are no morals, standards, or values -- hence, Adolph Hitler and Fred Rogers (of "Mister Roger's Neighborhood" kiddie show fame) are completely equal, neither one better or more noble than the other. Right? Is this what you are saying?

You see, this is a warped philosophy; it is also evil. Why do I say it is evil? Because it lowers Fred Rogers (a very lovely, kind, compassionate man with a huge heart) to the level of a hatemongering, genocidal, megalomaniac like Adolph Hitler.

Fred Rogers is wonderful and beneficent. Adolph Hitler was a murderous thug. The philosophy you quote makes neither one nor the other any better than the other. This is wrong.

Besides, humans will always have their ideas of bad and good. The best test of what people *truly* think is good or bad is WOULD THEY LIKE SUCH-AND-SUCH TO HAPPEN TO **THEM**? This single concept usually breaks through any socially-conditioned stupidity.

And as for Postmodern thought: It stinks.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-05 16:52:17

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#2 2002-06-06 11:04:53

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#3 2002-06-07 08:37:25

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#4 2002-06-07 13:36:50

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#5 2002-06-07 13:47:54

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#6 2002-06-07 14:09:57

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#7 2002-06-07 14:27:55

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#8 2002-06-07 15:08:58

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#9 2002-06-07 15:59:43

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#10 2002-06-07 16:50:42

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#11 2002-06-08 11:11:51

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#12 2002-06-08 14:22:25

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#13 2002-06-10 11:46:14

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#14 2002-06-10 13:11:31

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#15 2002-06-10 13:40:00

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#16 2002-06-10 13:40:24

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#17 2002-06-10 14:09:41

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#18 2002-06-10 14:10:10

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#19 2002-06-10 15:07:39

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#20 2002-06-11 01:15:16

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#21 2002-06-11 09:57:22

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#22 2002-06-11 16:38:31

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

#23 2002-06-11 17:37:27

Re: What If -- ? - Politics as usual, eh?

Board footer