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

clark · 2002-06-12 07:32:56

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.

Wouldn't volcanic eruptions result in a large amount of mass (relitievly) reaching escape velocity? It is a trivial point, and I am willing to conceed to you this point- unfortunetly I am not quite sure how, or if, it is still relevant to this discussion. ???

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.

And it dosen't mean that the cost to build on Mars is going to be less than shiping either- we are at an impass. The neccessary infrastructure will never change- you have to build the widget factory and the stuff to support the widget factory- shipping costs however can result in much lower cost overall though. You pointed out "building our homes in France for the US" would be counter productive, and I agree. However, having our computers built in a third world country half a world away, and shipping them here, is FAR cheaper than trying to produce it here ourselves. Now, I ask you WHY? You should say, like the intelligent person you are, that it is the result of the standard of living and the labor costs (really the major factors in this example). The same applies to Mars- the peopel on Mars will be enjoying the HIGHEST standard of living ever known to man- the cost to keep ONE person alive will far exceed anything here on Earth- it is for this reason that it makes more sense for Mars to have most of it's prodcutr shipped (as long as they live in vacum, this is the major hurdle).

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.

You know you don't agree with your statement. The agument for Mars becomes more effective and makes more sense when you also examine the role of the inner solar system in relation to each of the bodies. Mars makes sense, and becomes attractive when the moon is developed- the moon becomes attractive when LEO and GEO are developed. LEO and GEO are atttractive when Earth has developed to a point where it can expand there... At each point in the system, the interdependancy between the various points only serves to strengthen the entire system.

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

Because we are talking about complex and advanced materials and machinery- special minerals and alloys, semiconductors with their own unique requirements, etc.

I merely think that infrastrcture could be built with relative ease.

LOL. Have you ever toured a nuclear plant? I have- and I have to agree with the assesment, it is the most advanced piece of science and technology man has ever devised... to heat a cup of coffee. It's not that simple,, but then again, I'm no nuclear engineer either.

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.

10 years, the processing capacity for the bean stalk will be possible. Of course financing is a bit problamatic...maybe I should write a book "Space Elevator Direct".... start some small scale test sites in the desert for promotional purposes.

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.

The difference is that axes, nails, and hammers do not require us to take a large deal of infrastructure to create new ones or maintain them- high tech does. An axe or a hammer is a pretty basic tool- get a rock and a stick, and you are in business (eventually)- the same cannot be said for air scrubbers.

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

I look forward to not having any, good luck. Please, by all means, shut me up.

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.

Considering that Mars is going no where, why rush? So it takes us a hundred years to get to mars- big deal. I point this out becuase one of the justifications usually sited for human to mars is that we will all perish when an asteroid hits earth, or the sun will eventually explode- in both instances, the time scales for these eventualities are well beyond the length of recorded human history. So what's the rush now?

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.

Yet your system would preclude the possibility of someone doing something they wanted and making a living at it. Artists might care becuase when you create anything, you are adding to the universe- it is the closest we can come to being god- creating something from nothing- or the combining of seperate parts to create a new whole- it is a sublime experience- why shouldn't the artists have some right to the thing which would not exsist without them?

What is with your fixation on toilet paper?

LOL. You could say that I find some level of comfort with using toilet paper as an example just as a silent reminder that much of what people say usually comes out their ass (myself is by no means an exception, and I am in no way implying that this refers to you...right now)

clark · 2002-06-12 08:25:43

The EVIL of Deconstruction.....

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.

And what shall we tell the parents of the extremists who extolled their son to sacrifice his life in the name of Allah? Tragedy aside, how we view events- wether we determine if actions perpetuated by another are good or bad, that is all subjective, and you have to know that. Is it wrong to kill? No. Is it wrong to kill without reason? yes. Did the people who committed 9/11 kill without reason? No. So then what was their reason? We view their actions though our prism of values- so we deem their "reasons" as irrational. But the point is, they made completely rational decisions- that determination is solely made by them- not by you, me, or a panel of appointed judges. You view certain behavior as irrational becuase the behavior does not fit into your personal value system, but that in of itself does not make the behavior irrational- it only makes it irrational for you. Is polygomy rational? Is abortion? Is the death penalty? It depends on who is answering the question- either way you answer the question, it is not inherently more right, or more wrong than any other answer.

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

LOL!!! I don't think you can have an "extreme" point of view with deconstruction- extreme implies a value, and deconstruction is about avoiding the inherent values we place on things. Derrida is correct.

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.

Let me clarify- when you place a value on a certain color- say white is "good", that implies that all colors not white are "not good". There is more to the philosphy, but this is what i am getting at for this discussion.

*I see the point you try to make...and I also see the danger in this philosophy. I do believe child molestation is bad.

Why is child molestation bad? How do you derive this value? Would it still be "bad" if it was a right of passage? I am in no way condoning the practice- but when all is said and done, it is simply an action- neither good nor bad. For example, an asteroid hitting Mars is not a bad thing, is it? What about an asteroid that was aimed at Mars to hit a dome that people were living in? Is that bad? In both instances, the action- Mars being hit by an asteroid is exactly the same- yet one could be classified as "bad". Now lets say it is a dome full of convicted child abusers- is it now a "good" thing that mars was hit by an asteroid? WE create the value, it is therefor subjective, and meaningless.

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.

Irrational behavior, as I understand it, is doing something without a reason. It is irrational behavior to kill yourself. It is rational behavior to kill yourself by throwing your body over a gernade to save your friends. Nothing you have cited is irrational in and of itself.

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?

Nothing can be wrong- wrong is a value determined by comparing a thing to what is right- how do you knwo what is right? How is that determined? That determination is subjective, based on personal experience. That being said, there are such things as morals and standards and values, I do not deny any of that- however, all of those things are SUBJECTIVE, they are not objective truths. Is it right or wrong for people to conceive children out of wedlock? What do you base your verdict? Can others have differnt views? Who is right? Adolh Hitler and Mr. Rogers ARE completly equal, neither one is noble, neither one is horrible- each perpetuated a series of behavior and action that was justified at the time- WE interpret the behavior and apply OUR value system to it- but their actions are just that, actions. Abrham Lincoln was the greatest president or the worst president, depending on who you ask- the difference of opinion is the result of different value systems evaluating the actions. So how can anything truly be evil or good if it is all determined subjectively to begin with?

You see, this is a warped philosophy; it is also evil.

It is a philosphy- you see, you are placing a value on it as we speak. I actually like this point of view becuase it helps me see through some of my own limitations so I am better able to see, or try to see, other points of view. I grant you that it is much easier to just say "Hitler was evil" and be done with it- but the truth is that his actions are considered evil by many people based on shared values.

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.

no, it dosen't- I think you misunderstand. It lowers no one. It elevates no one. It simply holds that evaluating something beyond what it is is applying your subjective experience and impuing it with the properties you see. You can describe their acts, you can describe their reasons- but that's it. Saying so and so is evil tells more about you, then their actions.

The philosophy you quote makes neither one nor the other any better than the other. This is wrong.

You do it yet again! You say this philosphy is wrong, what that implies is that a philosphy that allows us to favor one set of values over another is good.

Value systems are inherently equal- they are artifical and arbitrary, based in the rationale of our subjective experience- Deconstruction is the philosphical expression of this system of thought.

Voltaire's Reason is a set of values, which I and most people agree with- but those, if any, who disagree with those sets of values is no less right, and no more wrong than we are. To assume so is arrogant and presupposes knowledge that is simply unattainable.

Let me put it another way: If there is ONE good and right value system, then everybody would have it because it IS good and it IS right, and to avoid that value system would be an irrational behavior.

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

If we will always have our ideas of bad and good, dosen't that mean the determination of each is based on our personal and very subjective experience? I like your test,but all you have to do is ask them- people will tell you what they think is good and what is badl. However, there is no test really to determine if something IS good or something IS bad.

Measure "bad" for me Cindy, tell me how much it weighs.

Reason is predicated on Science, so demonstrate how Science can give an answer for something that cannot be measured.

And as for Postmodern thought: It stinks.

That "stink' is only the dead and rotting corpses of the flawed philosphical thoughts that preceeded this paradigm.

Palomar · 2002-06-12 08:51:27

Clark: The EVIL of Deconstruction.....

*Yes, evil. Because it does not differentiate between the violitional actions of human will. Let me give you an example:

Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor, once ordered a newborn Jewish baby be brought to him at the concentration camp (I think it was Auschwitz). The newborn was brought to him by a nurse. He gave her strict instructions not to feed the baby at all; he wanted to see how long it would take the infant to starve to death. He and the nurse both ignored its cries of hunger for days, while they went about their routines, ate, slept, etc. Finally the baby died -- deliberately starved to death by adults who acted knowingly. This was documented as having happened, and witnessed by another nurse who couldn't intervene to stop it -- and who later reported it as well.

Contrast this with the mother who awakens each night upon the first cry of hunger from her infant. She goes to the baby, tenderly picks him up, and nurses him at her warm breast. She strokes his back and rocks gently as he nurses. She burps him. She changes his diaper, making sure he's dry before putting him back down in the crib, and covers him to ensure he's warm. She returns back to her own bed when she's sure he's sleeping again, and comfortable.

Are you going to tell me that this mother is no better than Josef Mengele?

Clark: "Derrida is correct."

*By your own "logic," how can he be correct? You've said no one can be right or wrong, nothing's good or bad...so how do you know he's correct? If you buy into Derrida's Folly, you've got to apply that sort of "logic" to him as well.

I really hope you're just arguing for the sake of argument here, for your own sake. If you're simply playing devil's advocate with Derrida's line of "thought," it's looking a tad bit tasteless.

As I mentioned before, there most certainly is a standard of right and wrong: When people actually stop to think, "Hey! Would I want such-and-such to happen to ME?" Yup, that's usually the breakdown in subjectiveness; that's when people start becoming objective.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-06-12 09:54:32

Finally the baby died -- deliberately starved to death by adults who acted knowingly. This was documented as having happened, and witnessed by another nurse who couldn't intervene to stop it -- and who later reported it as well.

There is nothing about this action, in and of itself, that is "wrong". You assume that the actions are "wrong" by applying a value on human life. If, as you declare this act is "wrong" then it would be "wrong" to purposly deny ANYTHING food- ie, plants & animals. Are you contending that? they watched a baby styarve to death- and "I" find that repugnant, but I also find Polly Shore movies repugnant.

Are you going to tell me that this mother is no better than Josef Mengele?

No, there is a difference- they each did a different action- that action is neutral, WE apply a subjective and therfore, arbitrary valuation of the act.

Think of it like this: Do you hate the gun that killed your parents, or the person who pulled the trigger? The gun killed your parents (well, bullets really), but blaming it or calling it evil makes no sense-that same gun could be used to execute the killers which would be good (at least some would argue)- actions, like tools, like everything are netural- we as individuals bring meaning to the actions- part of us trying to make sense of the universe; as such, we cannot hold that anything is inherently better or worse than anything else, in and of itself-

It's not trying to justify anything, it's trying to explain the process by which we view the world

Clark: "Derrida is correct."
*By your own "logic," how can he be correct?

We have a little miscommunication here- I was agreeing with your correct identification of Derrida as the author of the Deconstruction philosphy- not that the philosphy is "right" in and of itself- that, as you are now demonstrating, is an impossibility that if true, would undermine the school of thought. Deconstruction is only correct in stating that it is but one value system among many.

You've said no one can be right or wrong, nothing's good or bad...so how do you know he's correct?

Other than our little misunderstanding here- I have never stated that he is "right". I would avoid using the word "correct" in the manner you are, being correct is knowable- correct is a statment that is proven true from evidence. I can't prove a value system isn't correct, anymore than you can prove it is.

If you're simply playing devil's advocate with Derrida's line of "thought," it's looking a tad bit tasteless.

LOL- You just will not stop will you! Tasteless is another value that is completely subjective- it is derived entirely from personal prefrence. You have offered examples of how you apply your personal value system, trying to somehow demonstrate that your value system is correct- I have simply challenged your broad assumptions: Prove that what you think is "wrong" is wrong- what makes it fundamentaly "wrong"? There is no concrete way you can prove your point.

As I mentioned before, there most certainly is a standard of right and wrong: When people actually stop to think, "Hey! Would I want such-and-such to happen to ME?" Yup, that's usually the breakdown in subjectiveness; that's when people start becoming objective.

Okay Cindy, here is the flaw: Is binding the head of infant in such a way as to cause it to grow abnormally large good or bad? Is male or female circumcision good or bad? These are only TWO examples (there are litteraly a billion more, one for each person on this planet). Now, if you hold that any of this is bad, then how do you account for your supposed "objective" truth when the societies that perpetuated this behavior was and is right?

Your test is flawed because it presupposes that individuals will not submit to anything they deem as "wrong", and then classifies that as objective truth- but it aint, all it is is what they find acceptable, which is subjective.

In the case of circumcision, many people feel it is a good thing, and would willingly subject themselves to it- others feel it is a bad thing, and would not- so where is the "objective truth"?

I will stop agreeing with the things I agree with when I hear a legitimate explanation or reason why I should. Please, keep trying.

Palomar · 2002-06-12 11:46:50

Clark: "I will stop agreeing with the things I agree with when I hear a legitimate explanation or reason why I should."

*Likewise.

Clark: "Please, keep trying."

*I think it's plainly obvious that you and I do not see eye-to-eye, and that most -- if not all -- of our viewpoints are diametrically opposed. I won't try to convince you; that's not my style. We interacted mutually and of our own free wills on this subject matter; I answered your questions to the best of my ability.

Please consider reading that section of Ayn Rand's book I referred you to earlier.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-06-12 12:24:45

BGD wrote: b) A Social Council: Choosen from the colonists by the colonists...c) A Executive Council...d) A Judicial Council:

*I like your ideas! Good food for thought. How many people, by ratio to the populace, do you propose be on each Council? Also, do you propose a length of term for Council members? Should there be a limit imposed on how many times an individual may serve on any said Council (to avoid a sense of entitlement/empowerment by that individual...however, what if that individual is very good at what he or she does, and can provide a higher level of insight, guidance and wisdom than most others?)?

3. Ownership: A form of communism: nodoby owns anything, but certain objects/possesion rights etc will be given to certain individuals, for certain reasons, for a short period/long period/their whole life. Examples:
- rights of possesion for basic needs objects, manufactured inside the colony, and which are widely available for all colonists: clothes etc

*Gifts bestowed by others, and family heirlooms, should be included in this category as well. For example, my father bought a traditional Japanese tea set in Tokyo for his future bride (then unknown) in the early 1950s, when in the Army and on his way to Korea...if I were a settler or colonist on Mars, I'd want that in my trust and keep. I would be more than happy to have it on display in a dome museum, for example, so that others could see and enjoy its beauty -- but I'd want its well-being and care in my trust and keep.

- no rights of possesion for general goods, buildings, domes etc.
- equality among sharing everything: food, other resources etc.

*Would bartering and trading between individuals be encouraged or frowned upon? For instance, if I don't like chickpeas, would it be considered a social "no-no" if I wanted to trade my pound of chickpeas for a pound of rice? So long as the trade/bartering is between two consenting adults (no coercion or intimidation involved), I see no problem with this.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-12 16:16:31

It is a trivial point, and I am willing to conceed to you this point- unfortunetly I am not quite sure how, or if, it is still relevant to this discussion.

I think it's relevant to the discussion, because you suggest that the only reason we need to go into space is because we'd run out of resources. Given that mass cannot be destroyed (normally), and given that the sun gives us all the energy we will ever need, it should be obvious that Earth is a closed system.

Opening it up is inefficient, unnecessary, and actually detrimental to our own ecosystem. We need our resources here.

Yes, I totally conceed that we polute and so on and so forth, but our ignorant, short term consumption problems can be reversed. It just takes a lot of time and energy.

Some people suggest that we should terraform Mars because Earth is dying. But they miss an important bit of logic; if we can terraform Mars, why can't we terraform Earth?

And it dosen't mean that the cost to build on Mars is going to be less than shiping either- we are at an impass.

Like I said, I will show you how it would be. We'll eventually combine all of our past discussions into one super discussion that covers everything from science to economics to politics.

You just watch.

You know you don't agree with your statement. [...] The agument for Mars becomes more effective and makes more sense when you also examine the role of the inner solar system in relation to each of the bodies. [...] the interdependancy between the various points only serves to strengthen the entire system.

Your argument is fine and dandy. It would work. No one said that capitalism didn't work. But capitalism is inefficient and wasteful.

First, capitalism requires that you must be dependent.

Being dependent in space is suicide. What happens if a shipment gets lost? You die. It's that simple. What happens if something important breaks down and you can't replace it? You die. If you had the ablity to make your own stuff, you have contingent resources.

Second, capitalism denys you the ablity to have your own closed system. If your system is closed, that system becomes ?valueless.?

Independency and closed systems are not against the laws of the universe. Just the laws of capitalism.

we are talking about complex and advanced materials and machinery- special minerals and alloys, semiconductors with their own unique requirements, etc.

And it's completely inconcievable that those materials could be manufactured in one place? C'mon, clark, you know better than that.

Have you ever toured a nuclear plant? I have- and I have to agree with the assesment, it is the most advanced piece of science and technology man has ever devised... to heat a cup of coffee. It's not that simple, but then again, I'm no nuclear engineer either.

I have a nuclear battery...

But yeah, I have toured a nuclear submarine, although I didn't get to see the cool bits. Of course, your assumption is that we couldn't simplify a nuclear power plant.

It interests me that you can't even accept that we could, one day. Or at least thats what you seem to be implying.

10 years, the processing capacity for the bean stalk will be possible.

Oh yeah? You still need to get it into space. Last time I looked, it was 10,000$ a pound. And how heavy should your beanstalk weigh? A couple of hundred trillion tons (it has to reach GEO, after all- which is 25k miles a way)?

Sorry clark, but you're not going to build a beanstalk using Earth resources. You're going to be searching for carbon rich asteroids. And it would be best to trial test it over Mars at that point, anyway.

An axe or a hammer is a pretty basic tool- get a rock and a stick, and you are in business (eventually)- the same cannot be said for air scrubbers.

The difference is we are technologically advanced now. If we had chainsaws back then, don't you think we would have taken them? If we had bulldozers, don't you think we would have taken them? The point is, you take the best technology. And sending shipments isn't the best technology.

We are technologically proportionate to how we were then, there simply is no difference.

I look forward to not having any, good luck. Please, by all means, shut me up.

Heh, I don't think I will be able to. You are in bed with the capitalists. Even if I could show you the feasiblity of it, you would still claim it wasn't ?economically viable.?

Considering that Mars is going no where, why rush?

Rush? What rush?

I like Mars. I'd like to be there in my lifetime. And it's not crazy for me to claim that it's technoligically feasible to say that I could be in the first colonies. Nor is it crazy for me to claim that those colonies could be independent.

Artists might care becuase when you create anything, you are adding to the universe- it is the closest we can come to being god- creating something from nothing- or the combining of seperate parts to create a new whole- it is a sublime experience- why shouldn't the artists have some right to the thing which would not exsist without them?

The only reason copyright exists is to that artists can ?make money.? Not to ?protect their individuality.? Copyright is an example of what I like to call ?demand laws.? A true artists doesn't give a crap who listens to their stuff, or who uses their stuff. Yes, they would care if someone claimed their stuff as their own, but why would anyone do that if it wasn't ?pofitable??

You could say that I find some level of comfort with using toilet paper as an example just as a silent reminder that much of what people say usually comes out their ass

I admit that my projections are optimistic. But in no way are my concepts coming out of my ass. When someone tells me that it's cheaper to ship something millions of miles across the solar system than it is to build that something there, I tend to think that they're the ones talking out of their ass...

...I realize you probably weren't inferring that I was talking out of my ass, but still...

Palomar · 2002-06-14 13:51:53

In considering possible Marsian politics, I'd like to recommend the following as food for thought (John Locke was an Englishman who died in 1704):

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/constitu … e-bio.html

--Cindy

P.S.: While Mr. Locke espoused the right of property, I would prefer to see a Marsian society based on a commune system. Other than that, I agree with him.

MS member since 6/01

Cobra Commander · 2002-06-14 19:52:29

Having skimmed through this entire thread while engaging in another conversation I won't presume to argue with anyone's assertions as I may have missed something. However, one thing stands out: the issue of independance keeps coming up and it seems that there is some confusion of indpendence and sovereignty. The United States is sovereign but not truly independent, we rely on foreign nations for all kinds of things. We may not have to for survival, but we still do for a number of reasons. Independence and sovereignty are linked but one does not necessarily imply the other.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-06-12 07:32:56

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

#27 2002-06-12 08:25:43

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

#28 2002-06-12 08:51:27

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

#29 2002-06-12 09:54:32

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

#30 2002-06-12 11:46:50

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

#31 2002-06-12 12:24:45

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

#32 2002-06-12 16:16:31

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

#33 2002-06-14 13:51:53

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

#34 2002-06-14 19:52:29

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

Board footer