Comment on - Lost Mars

Bill White · 2003-09-27 10:20:32

I have attempted to post the following comment to the "Lost Mars" article but was told I needed a "comment error template"

Any ideas? Here is my comment:

= = = = =

Stu, you write:

>>In my imagination a real Bartlett stands up in front of Congress and, smiling confidently, declares?
?We choose to go to Mars? we choose to go to Mars to look for LIFE? to find out, once and for all, if we really are Alone.? <<

Moving words. Indeed this entire essay is quite moving. Well done. I have great personal sympathy for this reason for going to Mars and for your particular answer to the question "Why Mars?" However, I do not agree that this reason persuades that we must go to Mars, NOW. Why not 20 years from now, or 50 years from now, or 100 years from now. Other than a personal desire to see humans visit Mars during our lifetime, what's the rush?

If there is life on Mars (and I am skeptical, although less so about fossils) it isn't going anywhere. Mars has been unchanged for millions of years. A few more decades, or centuries, won't change that.

I am just not convinced your particular expression of the reasons for going to Mars are sufficient to justify our just doing it, right now. And I believe we must always remember that we face two independent questions.

"Why Mars?" =and= "Why now?"

"Why now?" is a question your essay simply does not address, except on a personal level. You want to see it. So do I. But how can I ask taxpayers pay $100 billion dollars for my personal gratification?

So I ask, "How does humanity benefit by our going - - now?"

Let me disclose my belief that to go to Mars without the intention to stay "out there" forever is a waste of money. I am less concerned with what we will find "out there" and more concerned with what we will become when we go "out there."

But if we choose to stay out there, forever, who gets to send the settlers is ultimately a political question. An historical turning point that rivals or surpasses the significance of the year 1066 or the Mongol failure to eradicate Christian Europe in the 1300s and perhaps matches the Chinese failure to "discover" America first.

Who should the settlers be? How should they be chosen? What implications will that have for Terran politics? Do we send only secular humanist scientists? Christians? Muslims? Hindus? Jews? Chinese? Americans? Brits? French? Russians? Who did I forget?

Affirmative action for the Mars settlers selection committee? And, never forget the golden rule -

"The one who writes the golden cheque will also write the rules"

This does NOT please me, but it is reality.

A prudent government will need to budget $100 billion US dollars for a Mars program. If Dr Zubrin were in charge it might cost much less than that however seeking to excessively downplay the costs will only alienate the more realistic legislators, IMHO.

So, tell me WHY should a Terran government spend $100 billion dollars, NOW, on going to Mars? What will the masters of K Street or Wall Street/Fleet Street get in exchange for their money?

clark · 2003-09-29 12:17:07

Who should we send to mars?

I don't know who we should send, but I am certain we should send people.

Why should we go now?

Tough question, but one that can be answered, perhaps by others more elequont than myself. But let me give you something a little raw and unformed:

We must go to Mars, and beyond, becuase we can. We have an opportunity, now, at this point in time, at this stage of our personal and cultural lives, to do that which has never been done before. This isn't climbing a mountain. This isn't sailing across a sea. This is the mountain to climb. This is the sea to cross.

This is a quest experienced very few times in our species history. Be it Noah and his ark, contemplating the will of God, and the desire to further His work beyond the End of the World, or the first Hominid, moving down fromt he tree, crossing the savanah, to unknown hills and valleys.

This is the last unknown hill, the last unknown valley. It is the best and last opportunity for man to save whatever Creation is to last beyond our own Judgement Day.

But if the soul can't be moved, then perhaps the pocket book can.

Space offers opportunity. It allows for new resources to be considered to provide for a higher quality of life for more people. This in turn leads to greater security for the richer folks as people are transformed from poverty to middle-class lifestyles, they becoem less likely to revolt and redistribute wealth to a manner of their liking, and rich folks disliking. Space offers a new medium in which to expand humanity into as another avenue for economic growth- be it in communications, entertainment, or just resource extraction. Space offers the opportunity to develop new means of energy production, therby allowing us to become better stewards of Earth.

Why should the US govn'ment pay 100 billion though?

To own space, for now, and for the next 1000 years. Someway, somehow somebody is going to go. That 'someway' might as well be designed by Americans. That 'somehow' might as well be built by Americans. And that 'somebody' might as well be Americans.

If something is going to get done, lets just send the best people to do it. :;):

Now, can we get on with it?

Bill White · 2003-09-30 07:51:09

To own space, for now, and for the next 1000 years. Someway, somehow somebody is going to go. That 'someway' might as well be designed by Americans. That 'somehow' might as well be built by Americans. And that 'somebody' might as well be Americans.

Precisely!

Someway, somehow sombody goin' to do it. Why not us?

The solar system is like a sterile pan of growth medium and humans armed with CELSS technology are like a tiny seed culture of bacteria. Add one to the other then - - -

Voila! Population explosion.

Am I pleased to compare humans to mindless breeding bacteria? Not really. But someone is goin' to do it and distaste for the above analogy won't change the reality.

If not us, who? If not now, when?

My questions are whether Stuart Atkinson [approves] or [disapproves] of this "reason" and why.

Why should the US govn'ment pay 100 billion though?

The man that writes the golden check will get to write the rules. Not Zubrin. Not McKay. Not Atkinson or clark. Am I pleased by this? Again, not really, but it is reality.

Who do we want writing the rules for Mars and all outer space? The United States? or the Chinese? How about the French?

Byron · 2003-09-30 08:40:04

Who do we want writing the rules for Mars and all outer space? The United States? or the Chinese? How about the French?

Who cares about who writes the rules? They can always be broken later...

B

clark · 2003-09-30 09:53:00

The solar system is like a sterile pan of growth medium and humans armed with CELSS technology are like a tiny seed culture of bacteria. Add one to the other then - - -

The solar system is an endless open bag of opportunity, and humans can take advanatage of it now therby bringing more opportunites for the beneft of all people who pursue this goal.

Voila! Population explosion.

Viola! Economic and technlogical explosion.

If not us, who? If not now, when?

Waiting only reduces our opportunites in the future.

Bill White · 2003-09-30 10:27:29

Who do we want writing the rules for Mars and all outer space? The United States? or the Chinese? How about the French?
Who cares about who writes the rules? They can always be broken later...
B

Hush! You fool!

Let us allow the masters of Wall Street and K Street believe that the rules they write will extend 1000 years into the future. That's the hook to get "them" to spend $100 billion US dollars.

The old order will never pay many hundreds of billions of dollars for a bunch of radicals to fashion a new society.

- and -

The Pentagon will never allow a bunch of bootstrapper libertarian Mars settlers to gain access to sufficient enriched uranium/plutonium to fuel the nuclear reactors necessary to support a Mars colony.

Nor will the Pentagon allow unfettered civilan low cost access to space. Too easy to convert to a poor man's ICBM.

To do Mars we need:

<1> Hundreds of billions of dollars (and a reason that persuades Wall Street)

<2> Earth to LEO heavy lift and nuclear power (and a reason that persuades Congress - - meaning K Street)

<3> "Science" as a reason will never get <1> and <2> accomplished. IMHCO - -> In my highly cynical opinion. :-)

Byron · 2003-09-30 11:33:58

To do Mars we need:

To "do" Mars the way we want to do it will require an "infinite wealth machine"....which is something I'm currently working on inventing.

I promise you guys will be the *first to know* when it's ready... :laugh: Onward to Mars!!

B

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-30 20:35:51

I have great respect for your intelligence, Bill, which is displayed in everything you write.
But you yourself admit to a degree of cynicism ("IMHCO", for example), which I fear is leading you to a rather more pessimistic outlook than is really necessary. In common with a few others here, you seem to have a certain bitterness about money and the people whom you perceive to be in control of great wealth, wealth you probably believe you should have more of (and 'them', probably less? ).
Quotes:-
1) " ... the masters of K Street or Wall Street/Fleet Street .. "
2) " ... the masters of Wall Street and K Street .. "
3) "The old order .. "

I know where you're coming from on this; nobody is impervious to the human emotion of envy, not even me(! ). But, by the same token, I think we should be careful not to overestimate the human ability to form cohesive groups based on greed.
I've often wondered about the standard notions of shadowy, cloak-and-dagger, elite groups of wealthy and influential people pulling the strings and creating a world which suits their purposes, usually at the expense of the average 'wage-slave'. It's a beguiling concept and it feeds on the human tendency to believe in conspiracies.
God knows, as I've often said, I love a good conspiracy theory at least as much as the next man, an excellent example of which is the purported NASA cover-up of information about artificial structures on Mars. I've read extensively about this in the files of Richard Hoagland's 'The Enterprise Mission' and some of it is very compelling.
How much easier is it to convince a struggling working man that he's worth more money than he's getting (isn't everybody?! ) and that the rest of the fruits of his labour are going to a secretive group of people intent on keeping him a permanently poor de facto slave?
It's a cinch, right?! Especially if the embers of such suspicions are constantly being fanned by left-wing associations with their own control-driven agendas. Especially as long as people find it easier to sit back and say: "Hell, I could have been rich and successful if only I hadn't been the victim of conspiratorial circumstances", rather than take their own destiny into their own hands and do something about it.
Yep! I'd say it's a self-perpetuating, gold-plated cinch!!

So is it all true? Are we being manipulated by 'the Old Order'?
My personal opinion is that humans are way too individualistic to cohere in such ways for very long, especially humans who, by definition in this case, are driven by unrelenting greed. This would have to be a perfect situation to which the old adage 'there's no honour among thieves' must apply. Imagine a group of people who've always had what they want, who've been brought up rich and spoilt and who think they're innately better than the next person. Now imagine the intrigues and back-stabbing that would inevitably arise in such an organisation of self-centred autocrats.
My view is that such an organisation would have within it the ample seeds of its own destruction. Sure, it might last a few years but I submit that it's self-limiting and temporary, just like everything else created by mankind. Thank God, there are simply too many mavericks in the human race for one group ever to keep the upper hand for very long!

I do worry, though, that you may be right about the Pentagon. At least temporarily, they may hold back the infant private space initiatives currently holding out such promise for the future of space accessibility for average people.

But, as for conspiracy theories, I think we really owe it to ourselves to be careful we're not believing exactly what we want to believe because it helps us cope with frustration or some inner perception of inadequacy.

Just a viewpoint!

Bill White · 2003-10-01 10:32:20

Hi Shaun -

I am sorry I have not been more clear. Let me clarify.

There is NO conspiracy. There is no K Street cabal or Wall Street cabal. No one is plotting to block humans to Mars or humanity entering space. Indeed, while some space advocates call for government to remove the "fetters" from space commercialization, I ask "Fetter? What fetters?"

"Wall Street" is a short hand term for the globalized world economy. If you need $100 billion or $1 trillion for a genuine permament and growing settlement, you must go where the money is. These guys are not against space or against me, they just won't spend hundreds of billions of their money just because we ask nicely.

I do not fear or envy Wall Street. I believe the globalized world economy is the only way humanity can raise sufficient capital to accomplish humans to Mars. I am a fan of Tom Friedman and Hernando de Soto and others who see a well managed globalised world economy (a bigger Wall Street) as being beneficial for all humnaity.

Rather, I seek to understand how to persuade them to invest a trillion dollars over the next 50 years. I don't fear them, I want them to give money for Mars. How? Is the question

"K Street" is a short hand term for the Washington DC lobbyists. The US Congress is another place where you can find $100 billion, if you only know how to ask the right way. These guys aren't against space or against me either, they just won't appropriate $100 billion just because a few space nuts write letters.

In Zubrin's novel First Landing, his Mars mission gets US federal funding simply because some Cornell professor gives a passionate speech before a US Senate sub-committee. Yeah, right. On this point, I am not being cynical I just reject denial. :-)

In addition to money we need nuclear power and heavy lift. Saddam sought such things and got invaded. Iran and North Korea seek rocket technology and nuclear power and are under heavy pressure. Without cooperation from a major world government, no one will go to Mars no matter how much money they have.

That said, I am very, very supportive of efforts by the world commmunity, lead by the United States, to control the proliferation of WMD including nuclear technologies and ICBM equivalents.

I do not fear or envy K Street. We need to learn how to persuade K Street to help accomplish entering space.

Wall Street and K Street are not blocking us. Rather, we need to enlist them. In my opinion, that will never happen if our only "reasons" empahsize idealistic values not cherished on Wall Street or K Street. We cannot persuade Wall Street or K Street unless we speak their language and understand their values. That is all I am saying.

For the record, provided there are sensible controls, I am fully in favor of a capitalism based globalized world economy governed by the principles of law developed in the English tradition with sensible bits incorporated from other cultures.

Settling Mars will not be an escape from this globalized world community, rather it will be an extension of our common human community.

Palomar · 2003-10-01 11:29:09

*Well, I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist and I'm not sure the Great and Dread Illuminati really exists. But the wealthy elite do network, and they do have the whipping hand. It seems there is no "by the people, for the people" in America and, based on my studies of pre-Revolutionary Colonial America and the aftermath of 1776, there never was.

The guard might change, but the guard's still there. Still stepping on Jane and Joe Little People whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Fear: Yes, I do fear the wealthy elite somewhat. They have the power, they've got the whipping hand. Look at all our troops getting blown up and shot on a nearly daily basis over there in Iraq...and look who is benefitting from the war (friends of the Bush family and buddies of the President, who are getting all those lucrative contracts for oil, reconstruction, etc...contracts which weren't -- of course! -- open for bids).

Regarding envy: Well, envy is human right? Sad thing is, it seems to me that most people base their "morals" and "ethics" on an entirely relative basis. How many people have we known who got just a little more authority in the work place and a raise, and now they stomp around like they're God Almighty? I don't envy people like that; people who base their "morals," "ethics," and "scruples" on how many digits long their bank account balance is: They're pathetic worms who deserve a good come-uppance.

I don't want to see Mars explored and settled (much less colonized) by private means. There's too much room for abuse. I hope for PUBLIC support.

Do you ever get the feeling you're looking at Mars through a retractable lens?

--Cindy

::EDIT:: I re-read Bill's last post. Want to comment on this: "Wall Street and K Street are not blocking us. Rather, we need to enlist them."

I don't want privatization of Mars exploration/settlement. Let the UN handle it (yeah, I know...), or form a new multinational entity to oversee Mars exploration/settlement. Whichever nation wants to have a say, though, has to contribute some $$ and resources to the kitty. If we privatize going to Mars, it'll all be about how it benefits the tiny group of ultra-elite investors, and screw the pioneer.

clark · 2003-10-01 12:25:20

I do not fear or envy K Street. We need to learn how to persuade K Street to help accomplish entering space.

okay, i had an idea. I'm sure it will be resoundly squashed as yet another crank comment, but here I go:

If physical representation of beliefs to sway political instutions to your brand of crazy is to difficult to achieve, then perhaps it is time to try something less physical, but just as tangible.

Let me begin by asking, 'what do politicans want from their prospective constituents?'

Let me now ask,"How do 'K-Street' individuals gain their influence over elected politicans?"

You get a cookie if you answered 'votes and money'. Politicians need K-Street's money to help get your vote.

With me so far?

So I was thinking (yeah, it's an off day for me, the result, thought) if some group of like minded people got together a little website that simply added registered voters and sorted them by zipcode (establishes which congressional district they belong to). The website wouldn't send spam mail or anything like that. You simply add your name, and around the time of your next local election (congressional and presidential) you get an email telling you which canaditie that is running in your locality is most Pro-Space. Which one supports a vision of manned space exploration. And of course, which one dosen't (this hypotehtical website could even include voting records on space related issues)

All you have to do is gather the names of registered voters who believe that a vision of space is neccessary. The website sends out a reccomendation of who they should vote for on this particular issue.

Sign up a few million people and you have automatically created 'clout' on Capitol Hill. You represent voters, or at the very least, are in a position to sway their vote.

The result? Watch politicans scramble over each other to take advantage of free publicity (the website advertises who should be voted for) on space related issues.

Most people don't vote single issues, and I doubt space would be one if they did. But the fact remains a lot of people support and believe in a future for space, but it dosen't get the attention it neccessarily deserves from out leaders. This is a way to make them pay attention.

But, I digress, back to the cave...

Byron · 2003-10-01 13:44:47

So I was thinking (yeah, it's an off day for me, the result, thought) if some group of like minded people got together a little website that simply added registered voters and sorted them by zipcode (establishes which congressional district they belong to). The website wouldn't send spam mail or anything like that. You simply add your name, and around the time of your next local election (congressional and presidential) you get an email telling you which canaditie that is running in your locality is most Pro-Space. Which one supports a vision of manned space exploration. And of course, which one dosen't (this hypotehtical website could even include voting records on space related issues)
All you have to do is gather the names of registered voters who believe that a vision of space is neccessary. The website sends out a reccomendation of who they should vote for on this particular issue.
Sign up a few million people and you have automatically created 'clout' on Capitol Hill. You represent voters, or at the very least, are in a position to sway their vote.
The result? Watch politicans scramble over each other to take advantage of free publicity (the website advertises who should be voted for) on space related issues.
Most people don't vote single issues, and I doubt space would be one if they did. But the fact remains a lot of people support and believe in a future for space, but it dosen't get the attention it neccessarily deserves from out leaders. This is a way to make them pay attention.
But, I digress, back to the cave...

Sounds like a good idea to me, Clark..why don't you give it a shot?

B

Byron · 2003-10-01 13:58:37

Fear: Yes, I do fear the wealthy elite somewhat. They have the power, they've got the whipping hand. Look at all our troops getting blown up and shot on a nearly daily basis over there in Iraq...and look who is benefitting from the war (friends of the Bush family and buddies of the President, who are getting all those lucrative contracts for oil, reconstruction, etc...contracts which weren't -- of course! -- open for bids).
Regarding envy: Well, envy is human right? Sad thing is, it seems to me that most people base their "morals" and "ethics" on an entirely relative basis. How many people have we known who got just a little more authority in the work place and a raise, and now they stomp around like they're God Almighty? I don't envy people like that; people who base their "morals," "ethics," and "scruples" on how many digits long their bank account balance is: They're pathetic worms who deserve a good come-uppance.
I don't want to see Mars explored and settled (much less colonized) by private means. There's too much room for abuse. I hope for PUBLIC support.

That is so true, Cindy, about ethics and morals being "relative"...I guess "Animal Farm" was written for a reason, huh?

As for people's dreams of getting "public" support for Mars exploration and / or settlement, I hate to be pessimestic here, but I just don't see the U.S. government forking out 100's of billions for Mars...because in a few years, the money is simply not going to be there. Do you know that the Federal government is currently spending $100 for every $77 it takes in revenue? Unless we stop this business in Iraq soon ("no, we can't pull out now...no, we can't possibly consider that option."), the drain on the Federal Treasury will only increase in the years ahead...and guess what's going to happen in about eight years' time? The bill for the Baby Boom comes due, and it's gonna be a whopper. Unless the government starts imposing some humongous tax increases, there simply isn't enough money to afford cool things such as missions to Mars (or even "necessary" things such as roads, education and social services.)

And as for Wall Street coughing up the big bucks...looks like I already blew it by suggesting that whatever rules they put in place will be broken by the independent-minded settlers (or perhaps they would have figured this out on their own.)

So how to get to Mars? First of all, the cost has to come down...wayyy down (such as would result from the construction of a Space Elevator). Second of all, we need to get more people excited about Mars...I mean really excited about Mars...to the point that they would be willing to freely contribute to missions and / or settlements, perhaps led by a wealthy, eccentric tycoon or two. Lastly, the big push for Mars may very well come from other nations who have a desire to challenge the hegemony of Pax Americana by financing missions of their own. If they do, I will greatly applaud their efforts...more power to them.

B

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-01 20:25:11

First of all, my apologies to Bill for any misinterpretation of his position on 'power-blocs', but still I doubt the elite have quite as much power and cohesion as is popularly believed. Just my opinion, that's all.

Cindy, I fully understand your irritation with the 'weasels' who infest the human race. There are far too many of them and hanging's too good for 'em! But still, under all my cynicism (yeah, I often get bouts of cynicitis too! ), I believe there's probably more good in people than bad and, when the chips are down, most of us will do the right thing.

Clark, your idea is a very practical one in that it analyses what drives the average politician and concludes that s/he is essentially just another of the 'weasels' mentioned above! Sad but true, I fear.
I think you're 100% right in aiming for their weakest point: Their slavering addicted pre-occupation with the votes that get them their power. Little else matters to most of 'em!
Why not see if you can get the ball rolling? It might actually work.
???

Byron, I'm no economist but I read a lot of newspaper stuff about it and talk to a guy who's been in financial planning for many years. I'm led to believe that there's no particular reason to think the U.S. economy is headed for a permanent downturn - a temporary reversal is always possible at any time, of course, but nothing that can't be cured.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Bush administration saying they have plans to reduce government deficits by 50% over the next 5 years? Sounds to me like they're at least aware of the current problem and know it needs attention.
Another background feeling about the world economy which I've picked up is that it's quite likely on the brink of an enormous growth phase. We may very well see wealth expansion, over the next 7 to 10 years, which will dwarf any other period of growth in the past century.
I tend not to believe in the zero-sum games some people adhere to, with their doom and gloom scenarios. I agree with Bill (now I understand where he's coming from!! ) that global economic expansion is our best bet for a lot of things, as long as it fuels technological advancement and is prevented from damaging the environment. And I'm convinced this is not only possible but that it will happen.
Many countries have debts but that isn't necessarily a major problem as long as the economies concerned can service those debts without long-term damage. The kind of economic growth many experts appear to be guardedly speaking of now, will serve firstly to decrease the actual dollar amount of, say, America's debt, and secondly to reduce it greatly as a percentage of GDP, thus minimising its effects.
In other words, it doesn't really matter how many slices of pie you owe the person next-door, as long as you're constantly baking more pies! The zero-sum people always assume the last pie has already left the oven.
Your ideas about easy access to space are great and I couldn't agree more. I'd love that space elevator to be built as soon as possible! But I do worry that the U.S. military will see it as undermining their pre-eminence in near-Earth space and covertly move to quash it. It will be interesting to see what progress the elevator makes over the next few years. If my worst fears are realised, we should notice more and more negative reports about the practicality of building it and a tendency toward fewer and fewer news items about it in general. It will simply fade away and then, one morning, we may read that Hi-Lift has quietly gone into liquidation due to lack of funds. I very sincerely hope I'm totally wrong about such a possibility but, as I've said, I do get cynicitis on occasions!
:laugh:

Bill White · 2003-10-01 21:12:09

First of all, my apologies to Bill for any misinterpretation of his position on 'power-blocs', but still I doubt the elite have quite as much power and cohesion as is popularly believed. Just my opinion, that's all.

Tom Friedman writes in his globalization book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" that the thing that scares some people most about economic globalization is that NO ONE IS DRIVING THE TRAIN!

One example his gives is Mexican national debt. When the debt owed by the Mexican government was owed to a half dozen or dozen US banks, the Mexican government could make a conference call with 8, 10 or 12 bankers and re-negotiate terms with a handful of people. More recently, Mexican debt was sliced and diced into mutual funds and was owed to millions of shareholders all over North America.

When the Mexican government wanted to re-negotiate the terms of their debt, there was no one to call. Thus, default and a Mexican national economic crisis. The finance minister just could not negotiate with 1,000 mutual fund managers all of whom have tens of thousands of individual investors to answer to.

<rant>There is no cabal. George Soros made a billion dollars selling the English pound short. He is now spending a large portion of that trying to defeat George W. Bush in 2004.

At times it may look like a conspiracy but I believe it looks that way by analogy - - like the metaphor of "selfish genes" Is our DNA really selfish? Nah! Its an anthropomorphic metaphor. But this meatphoir does help explain evolution because in a limited sense genes do act "as if" they are indeed selfish.

The global economic conspiracy is similiar. It looks like a conspiracy to screw the Mexican government and when Indonesia went into default the President screamed "Cabal!" and named the world finance community. But there is =NO= conscious cabal, just dozens or hundreds of independent people trying to make a few dollars. Who together sometimes appear to be a cabal.

Okay, </rant>

Precisely because Wall Street has no central power brokers, finding folks to write $500 billion in checks to establish a permanent Mars settlement is that much harder. I rather wish there was a cabal so I could write them a letter and explain why "doing Mars" is such a good idea. But there is no cabal to write a letter to. Maybe 1,200 cabals or 12,000 cabals - - all fighting with each other - - but no central conspiracy.

Same with Washington DC - - Who is more likely to fund Mars? Democrats or Republicans? Heck, I have no idea. :-)

Wall Street? & K Street?

These guys ain't against us. I am simply obsessed with trying to figure out how to persuade them to write $500 billion in golden checks. That's all.

Bill White · 2003-10-01 21:26:59

I tend not to believe in the zero-sum games some people adhere to, with their doom and gloom scenarios. I agree with Bill (now I understand where he's coming from!! ) that global economic expansion is our best bet for a lot of things, as long as it fuels technological advancement and is prevented from damaging the environment. And I'm convinced this is not only possible but that it will happen.
Many countries have debts but that isn't necessarily a major problem as long as the economies concerned can service those debts without long-term damage. The kind of economic growth many experts appear to be guardedly speaking of now, will serve firstly to decrease the actual dollar amount of, say, America's debt, and secondly to reduce it greatly as a percentage of GDP, thus minimising its effects.
In other words, it doesn't really matter how many slices of pie you owe the person next-door, as long as you're constantly baking more pies! The zero-sum people always assume the last pie has already left the oven.

I essentially agree with all of this. Economists I find helpful and who share (IMHO) this perspective:

Amartya Sen
Hernando de Soto

Journalists I like:

Tom Friedman (not always!)
Robert Kaplan

Realist cynics with a solid core of optimism and altruism buried deep inside. We can't downplay the worst of human nature yet we are not doomed to never escape the worst of human nature.

By the way - - some people say Machiavelli wrote his book to help good people survive in a world filled with evil men - - my opinion on that?

Perhaps.

Bill White · 2003-10-01 21:45:49

I do not fear or envy K Street. We need to learn how to persuade K Street to help accomplish entering space.
okay, i had an idea. I'm sure it will be resoundly squashed as yet another crank comment, but here I go:
If physical representation of beliefs to sway political instutions to your brand of crazy is to difficult to achieve, then perhaps it is time to try something less physical, but just as tangible.
Let me begin by asking, 'what do politicans want from their prospective constituents?'
Let me now ask,"How do 'K-Street' individuals gain their influence over elected politicans?"
You get a cookie if you answered 'votes and money'. Politicians need K-Street's money to help get your vote.
With me so far?
So I was thinking (yeah, it's an off day for me, the result, thought) if some group of like minded people got together a little website that simply added registered voters and sorted them by zipcode (establishes which congressional district they belong to). The website wouldn't send spam mail or anything like that. You simply add your name, and around the time of your next local election (congressional and presidential) you get an email telling you which canaditie that is running in your locality is most Pro-Space. Which one supports a vision of manned space exploration. And of course, which one dosen't (this hypotehtical website could even include voting records on space related issues)
All you have to do is gather the names of registered voters who believe that a vision of space is neccessary. The website sends out a reccomendation of who they should vote for on this particular issue.
Sign up a few million people and you have automatically created 'clout' on Capitol Hill. You represent voters, or at the very least, are in a position to sway their vote.
The result? Watch politicans scramble over each other to take advantage of free publicity (the website advertises who should be voted for) on space related issues.
Most people don't vote single issues, and I doubt space would be one if they did. But the fact remains a lot of people support and believe in a future for space, but it dosen't get the attention it neccessarily deserves from out leaders. This is a way to make them pay attention.
But, I digress, back to the cave...

How about we hire James Carville and Mary Matalin? I just love their new HBO series "K Street" - - Thats why I started using the term.

clark, essentially I agree with you. Only I fear this formulation is too naive. We will need to find a way to play political hardball and locate "tipping points" amongst the levers of power.

alokmohan · 2003-10-02 05:52:22

The US govt sanctioned appolo when the soviet system was a real chllenge politically.Kennedy did not bother for science but national prestige.Like wise once Chinaa proves a serious challenge,funds will come for Mars.

Byron · 2003-10-02 05:58:55

Byron, I'm no economist but I read a lot of newspaper stuff about it and talk to a guy who's been in financial planning for many years. I'm led to believe that there's no particular reason to think the U.S. economy is headed for a permanent downturn - a temporary reversal is always possible at any time, of course, but nothing that can't be cured.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Bush administration saying they have plans to reduce government deficits by 50% over the next 5 years? Sounds to me like they're at least aware of the current problem and know it needs attention.
Another background feeling about the world economy which I've picked up is that it's quite likely on the brink of an enormous growth phase. We may very well see wealth expansion, over the next 7 to 10 years, which will dwarf any other period of growth in the past century.

Well, it certainly doesn't hurt to be optimistic, Shaun! I guess you haven't been reading American newspapers lately, huh?

You suggest that there will be a huge expansion of wealth over the the next decade greater than even the 90's boom...what evidence do you see will be the catalyst of this next boom? Last time, it was the "infinite wealth machine" of tech and the internet, which didn't quite live up to expectations. Do you foresee the creation of another "infinite wealth machine" that will send the markets skyward and push global economic rates upward in the upcoming decade? I guess it could be the development of genuine nanotechnology, development of a cheap and plentiful energy source (that's the biggie...get us away from the tyranny of OPEC, please!), or some other "miracle" techonology that will enable living standards to rise. However, if what you suggest does come to pass, it will certainly help solve problems such as the huge deficits and the pending retirement of the Baby Boom, as the increase in government income would exceed expeditures, as opposed to the opposite (which is what is happening now.) In that case, we really would have extra money to spend on Mars missions and the like.

If you have any idea of what might be over the horizon, I'd greatly appreciate you telling us so I'll know how to invest my retirement savings!..lol..

B

clark · 2003-10-02 06:49:30

One word, plastics.

that or painkillers.

Byron · 2003-10-02 07:15:45

Plastics?? We already have those...last I heard, we have painkillers too - it's just that docs don't use them enough...lol..

B

Palomar · 2003-10-02 07:33:42

Plastics?? We already have those...last I heard, we have painkillers too - it's just that docs don't use them enough...lol..
B

*That's because pain killers are usually narcotic in composition and thus highly addictive. Of course, docs don't want to lose their licenses to practice medicine.

And who needs pain pills anyway, when we've got VODKA!

"Roll out the barrel
We'll have a barrel of fun!"

Woo-hooooo! Let's all get plastered, whaddya say??

--Cindy

clark · 2003-10-02 09:28:58

[sigh] I suppose it was a bit much to expect anyone to get The Graduate refrence.

As for 'painkillers', think more 'arthritic pain' killers.

I would think going on and on about the Baby Boom generation, you might see the connection.

But now I'm being off-topic...

Bill White · 2003-10-02 11:04:25

As for 'painkillers', think more 'arthritic pain' killers.

Many years ago I knew some people who owned a sailboat named "Painkiller" - - something to do with rum and fruit juice. The folks I sailed with added a dash of coconut milk and renamed the drink "Frenzy" which was the name of our boat.

Sailboats, rum and Jimmy Buffet - - all pre-wife and children.

Now its Mars.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-03 19:36:22

Firstly, Bill, I like your posts very much. As I've said, there is an enviable clarity of thought behind them and you obviously know whereof you speak! Besides, I like your optimistic streak.

Which brings me to Byron's comment on my own optimistic streak. If I really knew what was over the horizon, I'd be a very popular man! Unfortunately all I do is read articles here and there and listen to my financial-advisor friend. There is a book, though, called "The Roaring 2000s" by Harry S. Dent, Jr. which you might find interesting. I confess I've really only thumbed through it because I find broad-stroke economics interesting while the fine details don't grab me.
Anyhow, this Dent guy is a kind of financial guru who analyses past trends and examines population demographics to detect patterns in spending and wealth creation on a grand scale. For example, there's a graph in the book which compares bursts of technological innovation with monetary inflation over the last thousand years! Of course, it also covers things like the emerging economic expansion in third-world countries, technological innovation, and the way baby-boomers are likely to dispose of their income as they approach retirement.
I honestly lay no claim to expertise in matters financial, although I could point to obvious things, like China's expanding economic role and the advent of new technologies, but my feeling is that we will come out of the recent downturn and do well.
It's another cyclical thing to find that a mood of pessimism is widespread at the end of bear-market episodes such as the one we're just leaving. I've noticed how fickle the economic reporters are, even from week to week, in the way they shift from gloom to 'gung-ho' and back to gloom again, as each set of economic data hits the markets. Most of them, I believe, have little more idea than you or I about what's going to happen next month or next year because they're dealing with something too complex to analyse accurately. In a way, the world economy is like the weather. You may be able to predict, fairly accurately, that Florida can expect, say, half a dozen Category 3 hurricanes each century, but be completely unable to say whether next weekend's church picnic is going to get rained out or not!
You may have very good reason to worry about America's potentially problematic immediate future, just by virtue of the reports you read. But I always try to remember there are many more goofballs than gurus in the world ... and that applies to the world of economics as much as it does to anything else (if not more so).
To my mind, and I guess this is really just one more opinion among many, the big cycles are turning and things will improve. And we have something else, too .. that indefinable something that seems to accompany the turn of a new century and spur technology onwards. New centuries always seem to usher in new technologies which the preceding century would have regarded as witchcraft. The late 18th century saw the advent of steam-power as a concept, then the 19th century used it to great advantage. The late 19th century saw the beginnings of electricity and the first inklings of nuclear science, which 20th century expanded on and utilised. Then, at the end of the 20th century, we saw the beginnings of genetic engineering, nanotechnology (including carbon nanotubes etc.), intriguing concepts like dark energy and string theory and their potential to give us a better understanding of mass and gravity, and too many other things to mention. God alone knows where all this will lead and the magical technologies which will spring from it.
A new golden era of science and well-being for humanity is at hand. Let's not be dragged down into despair and hopelessness by a bunch of whingeing pessimistic economists, who can't see the wood for the trees!!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-09-27 10:20:32

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#2 2003-09-29 12:17:07

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#3 2003-09-30 07:51:09

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#4 2003-09-30 08:40:04

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#5 2003-09-30 09:53:00

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#6 2003-09-30 10:27:29

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#7 2003-09-30 11:33:58

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#8 2003-09-30 20:35:51

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#9 2003-10-01 10:32:20

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#10 2003-10-01 11:29:09

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#11 2003-10-01 12:25:20

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#12 2003-10-01 13:44:47

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#13 2003-10-01 13:58:37

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#14 2003-10-01 20:25:11

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#15 2003-10-01 21:12:09

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#16 2003-10-01 21:26:59

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#17 2003-10-01 21:45:49

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#18 2003-10-02 05:52:22

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#19 2003-10-02 05:58:55

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#20 2003-10-02 06:49:30

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#21 2003-10-02 07:15:45

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#22 2003-10-02 07:33:42

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#23 2003-10-02 09:28:58

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#24 2003-10-02 11:04:25

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

#25 2003-10-03 19:36:22

Re: Comment on - Lost Mars

Board footer