Mars, Government, and Rights

joncarson · 2002-01-07 12:02:28

People have the right to be as free as they wish, so long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others.

Because governments in history have, in general, had a tendency to inflict far more misery, death, and toil than would have occured in their absence, it is important to keep in mind that ANY government on Mars is something to be wary of. I.e., substitute the word "organized force" for government in any situation and you see what I mean.

Thus, any Organized Force that is set up on Mars needs to be limited in what it can do to you, even when it is sugar coating its edicts, regulations, fiats, and decrees about the things it's doing for you.

It needs to respect several principles. One is property; you have the right to own it. The most important piece of property is yourself. You are your own government over yourself and what you claim as your own (ie., your material goods and your labor). The job of any larger Mars government is to settle disputes between those who feel that their individual soveriegnty has been violated by another. Its main job would also to be to enforce contracts.

Under this idea, murder, theft, slavery, kidnapping, and sabotage (pollution) are abuses of the individual right to self ownership.

Clearly, settlement and immigration needs to be regulated by some kind of central authority. A person could, in theory, stake an absurdly huge claim to half of the planet's surface, and say that he "owns" it. Then others could do the same, and we'd end up with feudal-style warlords and fiefdoms battling it out.

Thus, there needs to be a firm distinction between what is commonly controlled (public) and what is private. The public realm is controlled by the government, with the aim of protecting human freedom. It is public for no other reason than necessity.

Public-controlled things would include immigration, water(ice) resources, the parcelling of land, and the common defence from pirates or earth-based tyranny.

How would the land be parcelled? It could either be bought or homesteaded. The sales of land would contribute to a central endowment that would be deposited in banks. The government would then perform its function by skimming off the interest from these deposits.

Oh well, that's my opinion. Whatever happens, we'd have to keep in mind that Martian government power must be limited and kept in check lest it take the all too easy route to tyranny.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-07 16:31:49

What is often missed by individuals who would advocate a government in which disputes are settled is that murder, rape, theft, etc. are all actually manifestations of the same force in human society that government is: the ability of individuals to have power over other individuals. Observe the relationship. At the most basic level, an individual threatens people who do not obey his word. Then, one moves up to the level of a gang, then a medeival lordship, a small government, and finally a great government, or empire. What this means is that our long established bias, the idea of crime and government being two sides of a war, is actually completely flawed: they are really two sides of the same coin.

We're asking all the wrong questions about property. We ask "Who owns what?" but that isn't the right question. By posing a question, we're creating a problem that dosen't exist. The idea of property is totally arbitrary and unnecessary. It can be thrown out the window.

The thing which seperates anarchy from government is not how the questions are answered, but which questions are asked in the first place.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-08 00:14:21

Here is a quote from Proudhon in his book, ?What is Property.?

(All bold emphasis mine.)

[...] liberty is an absolute right, because it is to man what impenetrability is to matter,--a sine qua non of existence; equality is an absolute right, because without equality there is no society; security is an absolute right, because in the eyes of every man his own liberty and life are as precious as another's. These three rights are absolute; that is, susceptible of neither increase nor diminution; because in society each associate receives as much as he gives,--liberty for liberty, equality for equality, security for security, body for body, soul for soul, in life and in death.
But property, in its derivative sense, and by the definitions of law, is a right outside of society; for it is clear that, if the wealth of each was social wealth, the conditions would be equal for all, and it would be a contradiction to say: PROPERTY IS A MAN'S RIGHT TO DISPOSE AT WILL OF SOCIAL PROPERTY. Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a NATURAL right, this natural right is not SOCIAL, but ANTI-SOCIAL. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property.

joncarson · 2002-01-08 10:21:05

In my opinion, equality is not an absolute right because people are not equal and are can only be made that way "by hatchet, axe, and saw." The only way I imagin equality being a right is in equality of rights. That is, everybody is born equally free.

Security is not an absolute right because it is subservient to liberty. By definition, anything you do to someone else without their permission deprives them of both liberty and security. However, each person is at liberty to decide what kind of security they wish for themselves.

Although property sounds like a mean and nasty word, it is actually an institution that reigns in the nastier human qualities of greed and envy. This institution is self-correcting since you are ultimately penalized for owning too much stuff that you either don't need or cannot afford. Also, things are not as well cared for when they are commonly tended to. Ever heard the saying "when it's Everyone's responsibility, it's No One's responsibility?" Property can be shared and cared for however one wishes, but it is in the interest of the proprietor to tend it as well as possible and be as good a neighbor as possible, since the value of his goods and his reputation are at stake. Thus I can't see how property is an anti-social creation; it cushions and lubricates society so ultimately liberty is preserved to the fullest extent.

Maybe I am missing something here. Anarchy that does not respect property rights simply has no chance in heck of working because it descends into a flashback to Pol Pot. Now Anarcho-capitalism...maybe...just maybe it could work...

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-08 16:14:55

During my quotes, all bold emphasis is mine, just to reiterate.

[...] equality is not an absolute right because people are not equal and are can only be made that way "by hatchet, axe, and saw."

Granted, a society where everyone was equal physically and psychologically would be very boring, and Proudhon is not suggesting that. He's suggesting that everyone have equal liberty and security, which can be shown by disecting what he said.

The only way I imagine equality being a right is in equality of rights. That is, everybody is born equally free.

Ah, yes. And it can be shown that property (in the classic, non-private sense) is truely detriment to freedom and liberty! Read Proudhon's words, ?if the wealth of each was social wealth, the conditions would be equal for all, and it would be a contradiction to say: PROPERTY IS A MAN'S RIGHT TO DISPOSE AT WILL OF SOCIAL PROPERTY.?

Security is not an absolute right because it is subservient to liberty.

Security in this context is limited by liberty and equality. Given the United States Constitution, this kind of security is obvious. We're not talking about conflicting Draconian laws that are in essence ?anti-liberty security.? Again, let's refer back to Proudhon's words, ?in the eyes of every man his own liberty and life are as precious as another's.? In essence, security is merely the same thing you suggested in the beginning, that one may not infringe the rights (expanded; the equality, and liberty) of others.

Although property sounds like a mean and nasty word [...]

Since when was property considered a ?mean and nasty word?? Anyone arguing the case against it is going to be flamed to #### in most social circles.

I can't see how property is an anti-social creation; it cushions and lubricates society so ultimately liberty is preserved to the fullest extent.

I can. Eric Fromm wrote some interesting stuff about property. From his book ?To Have or To Be?:

?If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I? Nobody but a defeated, deflated, pathetic testimony to a wrong way of living. Because I can lose what I have, I am necessarily constantly worried that I shall lose what I have.?

Maybe I am missing something here.

I think you are. I don't think you quite understand what Anarchy is.

Now Anarcho-capitalism...maybe...just maybe it could work...

I'll leave you with a quote from Noam Chomsky, since I agree with his forthrightness.

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of ?free contract? between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.?

Zak Tolley · 2002-01-09 00:23:38

My Martian bil of Rights, I wrote this for my physics class beleive it or not. Here's the abridged version. Your comments and opionions are welcom

1.)The freedom of the people, being the impetus for the existence of any state, neither the global or the local government may pass any law that restricts the people right to express themselves. These include the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of dress, and the many other methods of expression too numerous to mention.

2.)The flow of information being crucial for the existence of any free society neither the local nor federal government may pass any legislation that restricts the peoples right to communicate, print, and broadcast as they see fit. The government shall interfere with telecommunication other then to set standards of frequencies and connector sizes, and other technical aspects to foster communication.

3.)As any free government, governs by consent, the people must have the means, and in fact are obligated to remove an unjust government. In this sprit neither the global nor the local government shall interfere with the people right to keep, bear, and manufacture arms and armaments with the exception of weapons of mass destruction.

4.)A totalitarian state, being contrary to the freedom, and well being of the people, The global or local government may not subject the populous to search, inquiry, monitoring or seizure without the due process and authorization.

5.) work of an individual, be it thought their mind or physical labor is inherently their own and they are entitled to the bulk of it's rewards. With this in mind the people have the right to own their intellectual and physical property with out interference. To ensure that the state does not interfere with the individual or cooperative works of the people the global government may not tax it's citizens more the 10% of their annual earnings, and their total tax burden including local taxes and tariffs may not exceed 15%.

joncarson · 2002-01-09 09:39:19

Josh, I just want to say that I respect your opinions and invite further discussion. I realize you feel passionately about your positions and admire that. Having said that, I don't have any intention of this going into a silly flame war.

Anyway, your quotes from that astute commentator, Noam Chomsky, are interesting. Although he can be a good critic of imperialist foreign policies, I do think he's wrong some of the time on some things.

I'll try to read more on "anarchy" at the link. The ideals are attractive and I agree with the notion that anarchy doesn't necessarily have to be "chaos"...at least when things are working properly. But they are more likely to work properly under conditions where goods and services are exchanged under contract, IMO.

However, the notion of "mine" and "yours" is not easy to briskly shake from the human race. I think sharing is wonderful. However, there are always greedy people who will take unfair advantage under situations of free sharing. Take a drive on the interstate during rush hour and you will understand what I mean. Most people share the common space of the road and just try to behave and muddle through. But there's always some stupid guy who tries to make a break for it in the emergency lane, or dangerously swerves around at 100 mph.

We are basically apes, mind you, and we share many of the same neurochemical pathways and behaviors. There's always going to be an "alpha male" and many more who aspire to be. The same behaviors that drive people to become the alpha are the ones that make people want to build the Trump Towers and shout from the floor of the NYSE. It's obnoxious. It's unfair. But the way to reign it in is to acknowledge that it exists and deal with it. The way to do it is with titles, deeds, and contracts--ie., enforcing material and human capital rights.

Nearly every society around the world has some notion of property. Even primitive tribes fight over the best hunting grounds, cattle, horses, fresh water springs. While not everyone parcels out resources in the same way, we need to acknowledge it is basic to our nature. We are not bees. Our genes have fashioned us for the hard, scarce life on the savanna, in groups of about 50-100 or so. Can't change that unless you want to change humanity, start from the year zero.

So here's my point. Anarchy without property is not really anarchy, because there is going to have to be the "law" that requires one to "share." Who enforces the law? Government of some kind. Because that is what government does. It enforces.

Anarchy on Mars? I say, "Fine." If anti-capitalist anarchists want to build their own settlements and utopias, why not? However, this anarchy ought not to be forced or enforced. If people want to be free to do business with contracts or deeds or property, I don't that should be penalized either.

clark · 2002-01-09 13:09:33

joncarson,

You bring up a valid issue when refrencing mankind's origins on the dusty plains of ancient africa.

Have any of you here considered the implications of creating an outpost, fragile as a bubble, at the limits of human reach?

It's all well and fine to debate the neccessity of liberty, and to remind us about the horrors of tyranny- yet not a single word is mentioned regarding the reality of the martian situation.

It is only when we unencumber ourselves from idealogy and politcal theory that a true attempt at understanding what is the best course of action for a future Mars Society will be.

The Martian Reality:

Terraforming will not be achieved for several generations, which neccessitates a reliance on artifical homes and the advanced machinery neccessary to maintain human life. The relatively fragile machines future martians would depend on will require a level of security undreamed of here.

All neccessary components to support life on Mars are not available, which will force a reliance upon outside sources. Liberty is founded on self-reliance, without self-reliance, there can be no true liberty.

Any development of land or exploitation of resources requires a great deal of intial capital. The cost of sending the neccesary machinery can only be supported by large governments or international conglomerates. The "every-man" scenerio isn't plausible because the cost is so absurdly high.

I have yet to hear a legitimate reason why the government would offer land for home-steaders since the people that would be needed would have to be highly technical- what is the benefit to our society by shipping our engineer's and our best and brightest to Mars? Why would we willingy choose a form of brain-drain that third world countries now suffer from?

If history is the teacher, we learn that humans will always sacrifice their personal (and societal) liberty for greater security. Imagine what kind of security would be neccessary living in a vacum that will kill you and everyone else in a matter of seconds.

Is owning a high-velocity projectile weapon (ie a gun) really the intelligent choice inside a pressurized dome?

If you allow for personal ownership of land, and we follow current property rights- where do those who can no longer afford housing go? Outside the airlock? If we have private power generation, what happens if the company decides that it will no longer produce power? Martians will live on batteries?

Government exsists to provide for the common welfare and the protection of our right to life- ANY Martian government, if it is to succeed, will be predicated along similar lines. As such, it would be neccessary that the State control all functions that pertain maintiang life on Mars- such as water, power, air.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-09 13:24:43

Same here, John. I will try not to be too forthright with my opinions, as I know I am capable of being more blatant than Proudhon! I respect your comment on Noam Chomsky, however, I must point out that I get that a lot whenever he comes up.

The point of discussion is to create new ideas. Anarchy is not an ideology (as, if you read the FAQ, you'd know by now), it's a theory, which is constantly evolving.

Before I begin, Anarchy does not, by any means, mean lawlessness!

But the way to reign it in is to acknowledge that it exists and deal with it. The way to do it is with titles, deeds, and contracts--ie., enforcing material and human capital rights.

Proudhon argues that the requirement for property laws is because of equality. However, in the end they wind up contridicting their own existance completelty. Look at certian unconstitutional laws in the USA like the DMCA or SSSCA! They are clearly unconstitutional with regards to the freedom of speech, however, they exist because of property laws (and are even Draconion in that respect). This is why Proudhon abolishes the requirement for property law completely (indeed, he claims that property is impossible!), because property is inherently pro-inequality while existing because of equality.

So here's my point. Anarchy without property is not really anarchy, because there is going to have to be the "law" that requires one to "share." Who enforces the law? Government of some kind. Because that is what government does. It enforces.

I don't see any society functioning without laws, and anarchy certainly wouldn't do that. There is no rule that anarchy have no government, only the term ?anarchistic government? is an oxymoron. A government within anarchy (again, an oxymoron) would just be a communication network, truely nothing more. Anarchy is ?bottom up.? That's its beauty. There would be no ?sharing? laws, there would only need be anti-oppression laws.

[...] this anarchy ought not to be forced or enforced. If people want to be free to do business with contracts or deeds or property, I don't that should be penalized either.

I agree, and it shall not. It shall only exist by a constitution that does not allow oppression. And unlike the constitution of the USA, it will not be depreciated over time by bureaucrats. You will not be penalized for practising capitalism, but you'll soon learn that capitalism is too #### expensive in space. And not because getting into space is expensive, the technology is there. Give it to the people and we will make it useful! Oh man, how wonderful the Mars Society could be if it had the money and technology NASA has.

Here's Proudhon's final words on the subject:

I. Individual POSSESSION[1] is the condition of social life; five thousand years of property demonstrate it. PROPERTY is the suicide of society. Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modification of the principle, you will revolutionize law, government, economy, and institutions; you will drive evil from the face of the earth.
[1] Individual possession is no obstacle to extensive cultivation and unity of exploitation.
II. All having an equal right of occupancy, possession varies with the number of possessors; property cannot establish itself.
III. The effect of labor being the same for all, property is lost in the common prosperity.
IV. All human labor being the result of collective force, all property becomes, in consequence, collective and unitary. To speak more exactly, labor destroys property.
V. Every capacity for labor being, like every instrument of labor, an accumulated capital, and a collective property, inequality of wages and fortunes (on the ground of inequality of capacities) is, therefore, injustice and robbery.
VI. The necessary conditions of commerce are the liberty of the contracting parties and the equivalence of the products exchanged. Now, value being expressed by the amount of time and outlay which each product costs, and liberty being inviolable, the wages of laborers (like their rights and duties) should be equal.
VII. Products are bought only by products. Now, the condition of all exchange being equivalence of products, profit is impossible and unjust. Observe this elementary principle of economy, and pauperism, luxury, oppression, vice, crime, and hunger will disappear from our midst.
VIII. Men are associated by the physical and mathematical law of production, before they are voluntarily associated by choice. Therefore, equality of conditions is demanded by justice; that is, by strict social law: esteem, friendship, gratitude, admiration, all fall within the domain of EQUITABLE or PROPORTIONAL law only.
IX. Free association, liberty--whose sole function is to maintain equality in the means of production and equivalence in exchanges--is the only possible, the only just, the only true form of society.
X. Politics is the science of liberty. The government of man by man (under whatever name it be disguised) is oppression. Society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy.

Why not have a solid constitution with human rights outlined and no government except for an implied communication layer? A government of powerless ambasadors! Ah, the beauty of such a system.

BTW, Anarchy is not the abolition of private property. Which is truely a misconception among most people about socialism.

Oh, and if you want to acquire Proudhon's book, ?What is Property,? you can find it at the Project Gutenberg website. Actually, here's a direct link to it.

Don't worry, Project Gutenberg is an archive of all old books whose copyrights have expired.

clark · 2002-01-09 16:00:27

Why not have a solid constitution with human rights outlined and no government except for an implied communication layer? A government of powerless ambasadors! Ah, the beauty of such a system.

And what means will be used to enforce a solid constitution with human rights outlined?

Who should be responsible for preventing communicable diseases?

Who decides zoning ordinances? If I build a home somewhere, would I be without recourse if a toxic-chemical processing plant sets up shop next door?

Who decides if someone's "human right" has been violated? How are the people who decide chosen? How are their edicts enforced?

How are "human rights" decided upon? Who decides what is and isn't a "human right"?

It seems that Anarchy as advocated (in any form) largely neglects the needs of society at large for some individual ideal that is nice, but unrealistic.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-09 16:24:43

Hi Clark, I didn't see your post (apparently we posted around the same time... you can't imagine how hard it is to get all the bold open and close syntaxes right... but I like ?pretty? posts, heheh).

Anyway, I think you unwittingly prove my point. But you still see Mars as a scientific outpost. Time to break out the quotes.

Terraforming will not be achieved for several generations, which neccessitates a reliance on artifical homes and the advanced machinery neccessary to maintain human life. The relatively fragile machines future martians would depend on will require a level of security undreamed of here.

That's really a big statement. We can't even get to Mars, so it's presumptuous to assume that once we did we wouldn't have habitats capable of sustaining themselves relatively well (that is, biospheres that required little human intervention) and machinery that was both cheap easy to manufacture. The reality most people don't get, is that once we get to Mars (from a colonization perspective) we will have that infrastructure, otherwise it will be suicidal. Talking about inital scientific expeditions as though they have any political significance is foolishness, in my opinion. Even if a scientific expedition found life on Mars, colonization would still happen.

All neccessary components to support life on Mars are not available, which will force a reliance upon outside sources. Liberty is founded on self-reliance, without self-reliance, there can be no true liberty.

The infrastructure isn't there, but the elements surely are. Millions of people could easily live on Mars without any resource problems. You can go to Mars, with current technology, without relying on any outside resources, right now. We have the technology, all that needs is for it to be built. Liberty is founded on security and equality. Without security or equality there can be no liberty.

Any development of land or exploitation of resources requires a great deal of intial capital. The cost of sending the neccesary machinery can only be supported by large governments or international conglomerates.

Capitalism obviously fails from a production standpoint. Truely, a areospike engine is simple enough to build, the concept is trivial, but why does it cost so much to build one? We have gentlemen in New Zealand building homemade ones for under a hundred dollars. Why does it cost NASA or some other government billions to build a bigger one?

The cost of appropriating N ammount of land on Mars is relatively equal to the area of composite plastic it takes to cover a semi-hemispherical dome and the facilities required to use solar electricity to convert carbon dioxide into breathable air and purify water. This is easy enough to calculate! The surface of a hemisphere is 2p^2R^3 where p is PI and R is radius. Since the bubble need not include the ground, we take off another exponent. So our bubble is 2p^2R^2 at most, and since it doesn't need to be perfectly hemispherical it is much less than that (the equation to calculate a zone with a semi-hemispherical top is a little more complicated, but you get my drift).

It costs 200 million dollars to build a football stadium that takes thousands of people to build, hundreds of pieces of machinery and countless manhours. An ?inflatable trashbag? on Mars should not cost more than 1% of that, at most!

I have yet to hear a legitimate reason why the government would offer land for home-steaders since the people that would be needed would have to be highly technical- what is the benefit to our society by shipping our engineer's and our best and brightest to Mars?

Mass produced ?trashbag? habitats should be easy enough to make once the infrastructure is in place. And then, each habitat should have the capablity to build their own habitats, so really, I see no problem with resources once the art of resource procuring is abolished. And that will have to happen in space, because it if doesn't, you simply die. It's really not in your best interest for your fellow man to die, because he can help you. The more people you have to help you patch that leak, the better off you are.

The point is that it doesn't take the ?best and the brightest.? Do you really think American pioneers were people who were trained in what they did? Of course they weren't! They were like you and me (deja vu, have I said this before?)! But again, you still have this belief that Mars is merely a scientific outpost, which has no political significance at all, in my humble opinion.

If history is the teacher, we learn that humans will always sacrifice their personal (and societal) liberty for greater security. Imagine what kind of security would be neccessary living in a vacum that will kill you and everyone else in a matter of seconds.

I don't think the people on the Mayflower worried about their fellow man throwing them overboard much (though there was a case of someone drowning... hmm...), anyway, these are givens. Going to Mars means wearing space suits and containing yourself to domes for the most part. But it also means starting a new society in which injustice cannot exist! That is worth it. That is why it will happen.

Is owning a high-velocity projectile weapon (ie a gun) really the intelligent choice inside a pressurized dome?

What is there to hunt in a pressurized dome? Hopefully we won't accidently bring alont rats, but if we did, it would prove an interesting hobby, rat hunting.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-09 17:03:17

Aaaaaaah, we did it again, Clark!

And what means will be used to enforce a solid constitution with human rights outlined?

The first question is why someone would cause injustice. And what kind of injustice was caused. Then we go from there. Obviously it is up to the towns / habitats to ultimately decide. But truely, within anarchy there are few reasons except psychological problems.

Who should be responsible for preventing communicable diseases?

This is easy enough, people can be chosen at random for volunteer medical service. There is no requirement to actually do this job, indeed, the job would be so transparent you would not even realize that it was a ?job.? You wear no uniform, you do not occupy a hosiptal. Your only ?duty? is to be the first on the scene when something happens. You don't even have to have medical knowledge, since your wrist-pad (or whatever form of information device) tells you everything you need to know short of how to perform brain surgery. Everyone could have this job, if they wanted.

This can go for everything. We'll call ?police officers? Security Assurance Officials, only, they won't wear uniforms, and will go about daily activities, but when something happens, they will pull out their SAO identity and see if they can calm the situation.

As an incentive, we can have random elections for people, and of course, it's only voluntary.

Who decides zoning ordinances? If I build a home somewhere, would I be without recourse if a toxic- chemical processing plant sets up shop next door?

Again, town councils. The reasoning is hard for me to understand. Without the insecure desire for property, specific ?places? don't matter. There is no argument where the ?best? places are. And anyway, zoning laws would be intuitive (as they always are), and you wouldn't have to fear pollution or any kind of disastor. We're living in the future, man!

Who decides if someone's "human right" has been violated? How are the people who decide chosen? How are their edicts enforced?

Pretty much the same way they are now. Each town will have a council and many decisions will be made democratically.

How are "human rights" decided upon? Who decides what is and isn't a "human right"?

Again, the councils in each town. Granted, this gives room for towns to be religiously fanatical in nature, and maybe we wouldn't want that, but perhaps this can be overcome. Since everything is bottom up and decenteralized, there is no chance of bigots polluting other poppulations with their rethoric.

It seems that Anarchy as advocated (in any form) largely neglects the needs of society at large for some individual ideal that is nice, but unrealistic.

It's not an ideal, it's a theory. Read Proudhon, the Anarcist Faq, and some of Noam Chomsky's stuff.

Proudhon said so passionately, ?If all our institutions are based upon an error in calculation, does it not follow that these institutions are so many shams? And if the entire social structure is built upon this absolute impossibility of property, is it not true that the government under which we live is a chimera, and our present society a utopia??

(Note: I edited a quote so that it would make more sense... I think more explaination is necessary, since it's contextual. But I can't elaborate now.)

clark · 2002-01-14 15:05:10

The infrastructure isn't there, but the elements surely are. Millions of people could easily live on Mars without any resource problems.

We can't even get to Mars, so it's presumptuous to assume that once we did we wouldn't have habitats capable of sustaining themselves relatively well (that is, biospheres that
required little human intervention) and machinery that was both cheap easy to manufacture.

Isn't is presumptuous to assume that we would have habitats and machinery that is both cheap and easy to manufacture for Mars?

The infrastructure isn't there, but the elements surely are. Millions of people could easily live on Mars without any resource problems.

Even if ALL the basic elements are there, the basic infrastructure to build the advanced factories are not. You need the basic tools to build the neccessary tools to build the basic factories that build the computer chips- etc. Previous experience of colonization centered on extratcing raw materials and shipping them back to the colonizing country to finish into a manufactured good, which was needed/wanted by those who orignially extracted the raw material- this will NEVER be the case for mars- it will thus always lack the neccessary capital to create the finished manufactured goods- it will never be able to produce enough of anything in order to create it's own capital- it will stay a scientific outpost just like anartica.

You can go to Mars, with current technology, without relying on any outside resources, right now. We have the technology, all that needs is for it to be built.

You are either mistaken or are lying. ALL realistic plans for a SAFE RETURN trip from mars are based on taking the neccessary resources WITH you- AND, all plans fail invariably due to the health consequences involved with long duration space missions. Sorry my friend, but we do not possess the appropriate hardware, technology, experience, or general know-how to adquetly conduct a Human-Mars mission. Our bio-regeneration systems are woefully lacking, our knowledge of radiation on Mars, or in transist is unknown, we are without heavy lift capabilities and have had NO NEW HUMAN missions beyond LEO. The ships and engines that would take us to Mars aren't even developed- do you know how long it takes to man-rate a space vehicle?

What about a true Mars suit? In development. What about the problems with zero-g and the consequences on the cardio-vascular system, the immune system, bone-calcium depletion, or long term effects on hemo-globin? Spending several billion dollars to watch a bunch of scientists die a slow death millions of miles from Earth does not sound like a good idea. Do the cause some good and step down the rhetoric- Human to Mars cannot happen tommorrow, it can't happen next week. Human to Mars needs to be an integrated and common sense approach to space exploration that builds off of previous space infrastructure and space experience.

Liberty is founded on security and equality. Without security or equality there can be no liberty.

No, without equality, there can be no long term liberty, becuase security will be increased, at the exspense of liberty in order to maintain the status quo. Your previous statement is a half-idea. Look to the current US situation to understand what I am getting at; The US maintains it's liberty, but that liberty is not founded on quality for all- it is founded on equality for all americans- which leads those that do not enjoy our liberty (becuase they have no equality) to lash out- we step our security in order to maintain the status quo- losing some of our liberty in the process. Many cultures and civilizations have had liberty without equality, however, it was short-lived.

Truely, a areospike engine is simple enough to build, the concept is trivial, but why does it cost so much to build one? We have gentlemen in New Zealand building homemade ones for under a hundred dollars. Why does it cost NASA or some other government billions to build a bigger one?

Aerospike simple enough to build? You are talking about a super-sonic engine that must withstand high temps, high stress, compression, expansion, aerodynamic vectoring, thermodynamic heat anaylsis, etc... all for under one hundred dollars? Please, site where you get your information.

It costs billions becuase it is cutting edge technology and science- they build one-of-a-kind prototypes with exotic material and then they go blow it up to analyse the thing.

The cost of appropriating N ammount of land on Mars is relatively equal to the area of composite plastic it takes to cover a semi-hemispherical dome and the facilities required to use solar electricity to convert carbon dioxide into breathable air and purify water.

Hmm... air factories, carbon dioxide scrubbers, UV protection, water reclaimation facilities, food areas, power generation- all construction done in vacum. You later quote the cost of building on Mars at 1% of 200 million... well, what about these habitats- where do they come from? factor in cost of producing and shipping to mars. You give an estimate on cost for a technoloogy that does not exsist except for in your mind. What kind of reasoned discussion can we build from that?

The more people you have to help you patch that leak, the better off you are.

Yet somehow we have things like war and crime. People do not neccessarily act in rationale or predictable ways that we would like.

Do you really think American pioneers were people who were trained in what they did? Of course they weren't! They were like you and me

This is a different discussion, but the Martian Fronteir is NOT analgous to the American Fronteir- you cannot draw any meaningful results from the american experience and think it will apply to Mars- the environment (which is what made the American Fronteir) are too dissimilar.

But again, you still have this belief that Mars is merely a scientific outpost, which has no political significance at all, in my humble opinion.

I have yet to hear a legitimate argument or theory that proves to me that Mars will be anything OTHER than a scientific outpost.

Going to Mars means wearing space suits and containing yourself to domes for the most part. But it also means starting a new society in which injustice cannot exist! That is worth it. That is why it will happen.

Why can't injustice exsist? What is inherent to Mars that prevents injustice? Your utopian ideal is a house of cards.

In response to your second post describing a functioning anarchy on Mars- it seems your ideas are predicated on technology and human behavior that does not exsist, or goes against known human history. Talking about the future of society is all well and good, but when you base the foundation of government services on a "vouleenter" buecrat who is empowered by chance and by a wrist-watch of unknown abilities, I find my stomach turn. There can be no legitimate discussion, and your cannot be taken seriously if you resort to the magic of technology to solve all of our human short-comings. You are guessing and dealing with too many unknowns.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-15 08:16:41

Isn't is presumptuous to assume that we would have habitats and machinery that is both cheap and easy to manufacture for Mars?

Well, I may have implied that the first scientific expeditions to Mars would have that capablity, and that wasn't intended. The discussion was about colonization, I felt, so I wasn't speaking out of line. The context should be: Once we decide to colonize Mars, we will have habitats and machinery that are cheap and easy to manufacture locally. Indeed, that is a prerequisite for colonization!

In my opinion, it's ignorance to not see the obvious inevitability of the human race. Technology is in a constant state of growth, and short of us blowing ourselves up, we will undoubtedly reach a point where technology and the results of technology are as plentiful as air itself. To have to address this simple inevitability is absurd!

That said, I will lay out my arguments.

Previous experience of colonization centered on extracting raw materials and shipping them back to the colonizing country to finish into a manufactured good, which was needed / wanted by those who orignially extracted the raw material- this will NEVER be the case for Mars- it will thus always lack the neccessary capital to create the finished manufactured goods.

This is flawed. Colonization is primarily about self-sustenance. The primary reason for returning resources to the place where the colony originated from was wealth (not because there was an utter requirement), sure, there were instances where resources were returned to the point of origin for manufacture (because technology was centralized); though it should be noted that there was plenty of manufacturing (and innovation) within and because of the colonies. Robert Zubrin drives this point home effectively in many of his frontier speaches. Indeed, manufacturing your resources locally was and is obviously more efficient and less costly.

This ?will never be the case for Mars? simply because we'll freaking know better.

[Mars] will stay a scientific outpost just like Antarctica.

I know someone who lived in Antarctica for awhile. They lived there because they wanted to, that's all. Granted, they didn't really have the ablity to sustain themselves there, but that's not the point, really. They could have given the proper technology.

We go colonize Mars for many reasons, the most notable one being because we can. There are two lines of history I can forsee both of which end in the same results no matter what.

When technology reaches a level of self reproducablity (that is, technology has the ablity to make anything, including to make itself- and please, don't patronize me, I've been studying ontonlgy and the nature of AI for a little while now and I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about here- this is the future, to not see it is to be oblivious to history) there will either be:

1) Government will ban any sort of high level technology experimentation on the basis that it violates property laws; allowing large corporations to patent the technology, giving them complete control over everyone and everything. In a word, chaos.

2) Government will realize that technology is mans gift to itself, and create laws that do not allow proprietary rights to capital, thus keeping technology (information and knowledge) free.

(There is a line of dramatic history that could happen if timeline 1 were to occur. Some rebels could take over NASA and send colonies of people to Mars using technology they acquired from one of the bigger super powers.

I wrote a book about this possible timeline, but it's embarrassingly preachy so I never tried to get it published. )

Either way, there would still be some major structural problems. Here we have a society with the means to create anything envisionable (that obeys the laws of physics). The implications of such technology are so broad I could not explain it all within the text limit of this message box!

ALL realistic plans for a SAFE RETURN trip from mars are based on taking the neccessary resources WITH you- AND, all plans fail invariably due to the health consequences involved with long duration space missions.

Well, of course anything I would suggest would be ?unrealistic,? however, that does not mean the technology isn't there just that it costs too much. Get it? K, good.

[...] do you know how long it takes to man-rate a space vehicle?

As long as it takes to design an adequate passive shielding mechinism. Hey, I posted about this before, the arguement is irrefutable (you never refuted it, at least). I don't have time to dig up websites, but I've shown you evidence of a bureaucratic desire to forego passive shielding research. It's that plain and simple.

Do the cause some good and step down the rhetoric- Human to Mars cannot happen tommorrow, it can't happen next week. Human to Mars needs to be an integrated and common sense approach to space exploration that builds off of previous space infrastructure and space experience.

I don't think I'm doing anything ?bad? to some ?cause,? because frankly, there is no cause. Human to Mars cannot happen ?tomorrow,? of course it can't. I wasn't suggesting that at all. I was being dramatic, naturally, but I wasn't ?off? by any means.

The only problem I see any real problems in is bio-regeneration. The rest is done in computers. Indeed, you can't ?test fly? an Earth to Mars space craft. When you do it, you do it. However, our hydroponic experience is actually quite good as far as I know. I'm not a PHd, I'm a common guy, like you (I assume you are), so these are informed statements, not rhetoric, it can't be rhetoric, I'm not that bright.

BTW, ?building off previous space infrastructure? is what's kept the bureaucrats in control for so long.

Your previous statement is a half-idea. Look to the current US situation to understand what I am getting at; The US maintains it's liberty, but that liberty is not founded on quality for all- it is founded on equality for all americans- which leads those that do not enjoy our liberty (becuase they have no equality) to lash out- we step our security in order to maintain the status quo- losing some of our liberty in the process.

I bet to differ, the US has no security with regard to liberty or equality. It finds the secuirty of a big corporation more important than the security of an individual, kind of against itself, though, since the Constitution still holds up against any property laws (strange, but true). What we need are laws protecting both equality of conditions and liberty. Laws are synonymous with security. I know what you're getting at, I just think you missunderstand the scale of security I'm talking about. Without laws protecting liberty or equality, then they cannot exist. Liberty cannot exist without equality, and equality cannot exist without laws protecting liberties. See how it goes? The concept is simple, really.

Please, site where you get your information.

At the momment, I can't find the site. I'll retract the statement if you like, it's just that it's hard for me to comprehend the vast ammounts of money thrown into the space industry.

Maybe I've reached some level of Zen, though.

It costs billions becuase it is cutting edge technology and science.

Normally, that would be true, but in the case of the Space Shuttle, it's 20 year old technology. Go figure.

Hmm... air factories, carbon dioxide scrubbers.

Redundancy?

No, c'mon, we have a post in these very forums about a rather cool air conversion machine, actually, it's pretty hot, but yaknow.

UV protection.

Venzotriazole? Same stuff used on car windows? 97% blockage?

Water reclaimation facilities, food areas, power generation.

Have you been on a nuclear sub lately?

[...] well, what about these habitats- where do they come from? Factor in cost of producing and shipping to Mars.

That's like telling me to factor the cost of man power it takes to really build a stadium. From the people who go and dig up the ore for steel, to the people who paint little logos on the windows. And I can tell you, that is far far more than $200 million dollars. It's a plastic trashbag clark, is it so hard to be envisioned as being mass produced? It's made of plastic!

Put your money in textile stock in 2020, you won't regret it.

Yet somehow we have things like war and crime.

?Yet ?somehow? (as though it's actually unfathomable!) we have war and crime!? I have to keep this dignified even though I was insulted pretty badly towards the end here. But it doesn't surprise me you can't see inevitabile technological growth, you can't even see the problems in the world as it is.

This is a different discussion, but the Martian Fronteir is NOT analgous to the American Fronteir- you cannot draw any meaningful results from the american experience and think it will apply to Mars- the environment (which is what made the American Fronteir) are too dissimilar.

Yes we can. You just don't have a good imagination. It's simple, you can't colonize Mars until you have the infrastructure, and once it's in place the two will be completely similiar. When I say that we can ?go tomorrow,? I mean tomorrow the infrastrcture can be built, on technology we already have acquired. Go ahead, run down a list of ?problems? and I'll give you current-technology solutions.

I have yet to hear a legitimate argument or theory that proves to me that Mars will be anything OTHER than a scientific outpost.

Oh come now. I think the best argument is in the Sunset article on the front page, if anything! Truely, my friend who lived in Antarctica didn't live there because there was money to be made,they did it because they wanted to.

Why can't injustice exsist? What is inherent to Mars that prevents injustice? Your utopian ideal is a house of cards.

Space prohibits capitalism. When the technological revolution happens (and it will; sure, it's been ?predicted? in the past by various writers, like Stuart infers in his Reality Bites article, but timescales don't matter- we're seeing growth aren't we?), there will undoubtedly be a struggle, and I think, that would be when people decide they should go to a place where they can start anew. Mars.

My ?utopian ideal? is merely acceptance of inevitability.

There can be no legitimate discussion, and your cannot be taken seriously if you resort to the magic of technology to solve all of our human short-comings.

I think you fail to understand where I'm coming from. And I think this mindset is going to be destructive when the world finally does see where I'm coming from.

I'm not using technology to fix ?human shortcomings.? In fact, I don't see the level of suffering changing one single bit between the two worlds. Indeed, the tyrrany of the individual over itself is pretty severe. Life may seem ?utopian? but problems would still exist.

Read some Proudhon, it'll do you some good.

clark · 2002-01-15 16:08:35

The context should be: Once we decide to colonize Mars, we will have habitats and machinery that are cheap and easy to manufacture locally. Indeed, that is a prerequisite for colonization!

So a prerequesite for colonization is cheap and easy to manufacture habitats and machinery... what exactly was the time line you were expecting such an advance to happen? Tommorrow or 50 years from now? If cheap and easy is a prerequesite, aren't you getting a bit ahead of yourself in planning or even theorizing on Mars development? What if the manufacture of habitats and machinery never becomes cheap and/or easy? What then?

n my opinion, it's ignorance to not see the obvious inevitability of the human race.

In my opinion, it is arrogance to assume any "inevitability", especially when refrencing the human race.

Technology is in a constant state of growth, and short of us blowing ourselves up, we will undoubtedly reach a point where technology and the results of technology are as plentiful as air itself. To have to address this simple inevitability is absurd!

Technology, RECENTLY, has been in a relative state of growth- but this is by no means is always the case. Human history is filled with technological stagnation and/or regression. You are once again assuming that the last few hundred years will continue as they always have- yet you seem to think that the thousands of years of human history are meaningless.

There is nothing absurd abot finding fault with grand statements with little or no evidence to support the claim.

This is flawed. Colonization is primarily about self-sustenance.

No, colonization is about economics. It increases the amount of available resources to reduce the amount of external and internal pressure caused by current resource depletion. Colonization provides more resources, thereby improving the standard of living for more people- any endevour to Mars will ultimetly fail in this regard becuase it will not increase resources here on earth- it will take away resources.

The primary reason for returning resources to the place where the colony originated from was wealth (not because there was an utter requirement), sure, there were instances where resources were returned to the point of origin for manufacture (because technology was centralized); though it should be noted that there was plenty of manufacturing (and innovation) within and because of the colonies.

The primary reason was for a return on investment becuase it cost so bloody much to start a colony. This relationship is not practical for Earth-Mars colonization, so what is the motivation for people to invest in a mars colony?

I know someone who lived in Antarctica for awhile. They lived there because they wanted to, that's all. Granted, they didn't really have the ablity to sustain themselves there, but that's not the point, really. They could have given the proper technology.

We can live anywhere given the proper technology, so what's your point? It sounds like your friend had fun- but why should I, or anyone else pay for you or Mars lovers to "go have fun"?

We go colonize Mars for many reasons, the most notable one being because we can.

You climb mountains because "you can"- you don't spend billions of dollars to build a colony of little or dubious value. There are a lot of things humanity "can" do, however, it dosen't mean we should. Employing this argument as the basis for Human to mars colonization is grade-school material at best. Isn't there a more legitmate and reasonable argument for going to Mars? If it is "because it is there", then there is no pressing need to do it right now- so what's the rush?

When technology reaches a level of self reproducablity (that is, technology has the ablity to make anything, including to make itself- and please, don't patronize me, I've been studying ontonlgy and the nature of AI for a little while now and I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about here- this is the future, to not see it is to be oblivious to history) there will either be

And when do we get to look forward to this magic world of self-reproducing technology? Is it right around the corner with Fusion, mass produced hover-cars, moon colonies, and the cure for the common cold? When will we have AI? Another 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years? I read up on AI, and people still aren't sure. As for nano-tech, what you are talking about happening is almost 100-200 years away. If this is the timeline you are envisoning, then you should be more upfront about it.

1) Government will ban any sort of high level technology experimentation on the basis that it violates property laws; allowing large corporations to patent the technology, giving them complete control over everyone and everything. In a word, chaos.

Companies derive legitmacy and protection from governments- this version of the world is not likely.

2) Government will realize that technology is mans gift to itself, and create laws that do not allow proprietary rights to capital, thus keeping technology (information and knowledge) free.

Technology is a product, just like a can of pepsi or a car- without approriate means for reward, there will be little innovation. More than likely there will simply be a balance between the two situations you have presented.

Well, of course anything I would suggest would be ?unrealistic,? however, that does not mean the technology isn't there just that it costs too much. Get it? K, good.

If the technology costs too much, it is effectively a NON-option. We have the technology to turn lead into gold- however it cost more to turn lead into gold than what the converted gold would be worth- so in effect, we cannot turn lead into gold. If everything you offer is unrealistic, why should I bother discussing this any further?

As long as it takes to design an adequate passive shielding mechinism. Hey, I posted about this before, the arguement is irrefutable (you never refuted it, at least). I don't have time to dig up websites, but I've shown you evidence of a bureaucratic desire to forego passive shielding research. It's that plain and simple.

How long would that take? Even if we had the passive shielding, things like reentry, saftey in space, back-up systems, integration of multiple systems, redundancy checks, emergency evac procedures, etc... it's not that easy.

Normally, that would be true, but in the case of the Space Shuttle, it's 20 year old technology. Go figure.

It's 20 year old technology that hasn't been seriously developed. What improvements they could make in the shuttle, they have, and continue to do- however, the basic mechanics of launching large objects into space has not changed in 50 years. There is no such thing as a routine shuttle launch. It's a space ship, not a lawn mower.

Venzotriazole? Same stuff used on car windows? 97% blockage?

And I wonder how useful that stuff is in low pressure, high radiation, and extreme temp differentials?

Have you been on a nuclear sub lately?

Which can only operate for 6-9 months without resupply. A mission to mars has to last 2-4 years before resupply. But hey, improving the effeciency and durability of those systems 4-6 fold should be a sanp..right after "self-reproducing technology".

That's like telling me to factor the cost of man power it takes to really build a stadium. From the people who go and dig up the ore for steel, to the people who paint little logos on the windows. And I can tell you, that is far far more than $200 million dollars. It's a plastic trashbag clark, is it so hard to be envisioned as being mass produced? It's made of plastic!

Now you are getting it! You take for granted all of the pre-exsisting industrial base that took hundreds of years, and generations to produce on Earth to make that ONE computer chip inside your computer. All of that has to be reproduced on Mars if it is to be self-sufficent and survive. And the cost to do it insane and there isn't enough of a justification (now) to do it.

Put your money in textile stock in 2020, you won't regret it.

Actually, I'm sure I will. What good is textile stock, or textile companies if there are "self-reproducing technology that creates anything (as long as it obeys the laws of physiscs)?:)

Yes we can. You just don't have a good imagination. It's simple, you can't colonize Mars until you have the infrastructure, and once it's in place the two will be completely similiar. When I say that we can ?go tomorrow,? I mean tomorrow the infrastrcture can be built, on technology we already have acquired. Go ahead, run down a list of ?problems? and I'll give you current-technology solutions.

Since I "just don't have a good imagination", please explain how the American Fronteir and the Martian Fronteir will be "completely similar" once the neccessary infrastructure is in place.

Plase tell me what the current technology solution is to the following:
Long term exsposure to increased amounts of solar radiation and cosmic radiation.
Long term exsposure to zero-g, and low-g.
Reliable closed system bio-regenerative systems.
On sight construction in low g and in vacum
Psychological stress due to confinement during space exploration/living.
Problem solving critical systems malfunctions without mission control support/guidance
Practical low-g exploration suit

When the technological revolution happens (and it will; sure, it's been ?predicted? in the past by various writers, like Stuart infers in his Reality Bites article, but timescales don't matter- we're seeing growth aren't we?), there will undoubtedly be a struggle, and I think, that would be when people decide they should go to a place where they can start anew. Mars.

No, we will reach a point of eithe technological stagnation, or we will continue to grow. If we reach stagnation, our world, and our society will simply implode since modern industrialized society derives its prosperity based on technological improvements that allows us to continue to increase our resources (primarily though effeciency of use)- if technology fails to increase the effiency of use, the house of cards will cruble.

Space exploration and development will help stave off this eventuallity, but Mars will not.

My ?utopian ideal? is merely acceptance of inevitability.

Your utopian ideal is not based in reality, it is based on an interpertation of future events that may or may not happen. You are not talking about the "inevitable", you're not even talking about the probable.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-16 00:55:55

[...] what exactly was the time line you were expecting such an advance to happen?

Well, it's arguably realizable in our lifetimes, but I can't say for sure, and I'm not professing that I can.

If cheap and easy is a prerequesite, aren't you getting a bit ahead of yourself in planning or even theorizing on Mars development?

I'm not getting ahead of myself. I'm suggesting controversial ideas, ones which cause heated debates where ever they're brought up. My inablity to express these ideas properly causes confusion, though.

What if the manufacture of habitats and machinery never becomes cheap and/or easy? What then?

What if the sun goes supernova, what then? Nothing can delay human progress short of a huge disastor. Look at history, Alexandria was a society rich in technology, but it was wiped out in one single blow; millennia of scientific discovery gone. However, timescales are irrelevant to inevitability.

In my opinion, it is arrogance to assume any "inevitability", especially when refrencing the human race.

Yes, it's arrogance to say, ?Within this certain period of time we will have flying cars and such and such, it is undoubtely inevitable!? however, it's not arrogant to say, ?This certian vision of our future is inevitable given that we don't destroy ourselves first.? As long as the human spirit of discovery exists there is a certian inevitability to the human race.

There is nothing absurd about finding fault with grand statements with little or no evidence to support the claim.

Grand though they may be, they're honest. If I have to provide evidence then there is no way to convince you. If you can't see around you how humanity is in a constant state of discovery, indeed, if you can't accept that that is truely the nature of being human, then it would be a waste of time to try to convince you. Civilization rises and falls, that is a given; it's absurd to imply that civilization has no hope of preventing a forseeable decline. Two millennia ago, maybe, but not now.

No, colonization is about economics. It increases the amount of available resources to reduce the amount of external and internal pressure caused by current resource depletion.

I don't think so. Colonization decreases the ammount of available local resources in order to provide capital. The question is whether or not that capital stays local or not, and if it can or not. A colony that relies on its point of origin when it has enough local resources is a failed colony, in my opinion.

[...] any endevour to Mars will ultimetly fail in this regard because it will not increase resources here on Earth- it will take away resources.

The resources taken from Earth can be returned eventually once the infrastrcture is in place, but that point is moot. It's not like American colonists had to take all of England to America when they went. They took a boat and some tools. Most of what they needed, they had. They had their capital.

The primary reason was for a return on investment because it costs so bloody much to start a colony. This relationship is not practical for Earth-Mars colonization, so what is the motivation for people to invest in a Mars colony?

Um, American pioneers colonized because they wanted a new way of life, trade was a natural result of that, but it's not like trade is necessary as long as local resources are plentiful enough. This ?relationship? is illusionary. Motivation comes from curiousity.

We can live anywhere given the proper technology, so what's your point? It sounds like your friend had fun- but why should I, or anyone else pay for you or Mars lovers to "go have fun"?

Pfft, I never suggested that ?you? pay for a trip to Mars for people to ?go have fun.? And I'm under the impression that my friend had family in Antarctia, I'll have to ask him about that. The technology will be in place eventually, and if it happens within my lifetime, unlike you, I will be totally willing to share.

Employing this argument as the basis for Human to Mars colonization is grade-school material at best.

Perhaps, but there are obviously more reasons than just because we can. I use that argument because so often have we done things simply because we could. Indeed, I don't see people struggling to colonize Mars because of some sort of disastor, nor do I see colonization happening because of some commerically funded mission.

Why did we colonize America? Yes, there were economic benefits, and all that folderol, but really, American pioneers were out there exploiting resources themselves, not really relying much on any outside capital. Yes, shoemakers and clothes makers and so on in Eroupe benefited initally, but hey, those things were only temporary. The same infrastrcture quickly built up in America. And not because the technology didn't exist, but because the technology was horded and kept centralized. This resulted in reinvention in the Americas.

If it is "because it is there", then there is no pressing need to do it right now- so what's the rush?

Who said there was a rush?

And when do we get to look forward to this magic world of self-reproducing technology?

Within our lifetimes, perhaps. Hey, I'm contributing to the cause. You list ridiculous visions that aren't based on current technology, however, my suggestions really are based on current technology.

When will we have AI? Another 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years? I read up on AI, and people still aren't sure.

Some still don't see AI ever being possible. We can't predict what will happen. However, from my experience I feel it's not so difficult to realize as it seems. The underlying principles are there, all that is needed now is more study in the field of ontology.

Companies derive legitmacy and protection from governments- this version of the world is not likely.

Exactly what world are you living in? Company A can sue Individual B for acquiring technology they own rights on, this is reality. Even if Individual B merely reinvented the technology.

Technology is a product, just like a can of pepsi or a car- without approriate means for reward, there will be little innovation. More than likely there will simply be a balance between the two situations you have presented.

I see more of the former situation existing initally.

If everything you offer is unrealistic, why should I bother discussing this any further?

Well, it's unrealistic now, and unrealistic tomorrow, but it's not unrealistic because the technology doesn't exist, only the infrastrcture to create it cheaply doesn't exist. There is a difference. You keep innaccurately implying that we have no technology with regard to space, but I ask you, when we finally do go to space (or are we never going to go to space either?), how will we go about it?

Even if we had the passive shielding, things like reentry, saftey in space, back-up systems, integration of multiple systems, redundancy checks, emergency evac procedures, etc... it's not that easy.

You really don't think we're going to do all of this silly experimentation do you? Think about it this way: when we design a new airplane we do all sorts of structural tests, even preflight tests in a wind tunnel (though this has recently been surpased by superior fully computerized tests) but the actual technology doesn't get tested until someone gets into it and flies off into the unknown. This is how it always is with regard to new technology.

Reentry, we've had what, over 100 Space Shuttle flights? I think we've figured that out.

Safty in space? ... There are only two American incidences I can think of, not that bad really.

Back-up systems, required, but not really hard to implement.

Integrations of multiple systems. This is trivial and is often ignored. We have so many silly people designing different parts, it's a wonder anything works together. Systems should be decentralized.

BTW, I was referring to the use of static shielding instead of passive, I was saying that ?it's plain and simple that there is a bureaucratic hand intervening in the research of passive shielding.? (Static shielding requires more reasearch in particle physics, and if you want I can look up a paper that used static shielding to promote the building of a new particle accelerator.) I can see how you thought I was inferring that ?it was that easy.? Sorry.

It's 20 year old technology that hasn't been seriously developed.

Tee hee, the last big development I remember is them using antiquated solid rocket boosters (that were outside of the AMES research center, if I recall correctly) because the ones they had weren't useable.

[...]There is no such thing as a routine shuttle launch. It's a space ship, not a lawn mower.

True enough. We launch vehicles with 4 seperate parts that are held together with tight bolts and explosives. At a certian point these explosives blow up and the parts fall off. It's beautiful technology, really. Too bad the whole ship isn't self contained like the X-33.

[...] I wonder how useful [venzotriazole] is in low pressure, high radiation, and extreme temp differentials.

Not sure, but since it can be sprayed on to transparent surfaces, it's not hard to imagine it being on the inside surface of an environment. Plus, it takes an organic solevent to disolve it. Varients are used on the Space Shuttle windows.

All of that has to be reproduced on Mars if it is to be self-sufficent and survive. And the cost to do it insane and there isn't enough of a justification (now) to do it.

You weren't really seeing the comparasion I was making. The materials to make plasitc can be derived from a few sources, the materials and manpower needed to build a stadium are huge if you factor in everything. Factor in everything that goes to the making of a composite plastic structure and factor in everything that goes into the building of a gigantic multi-material structure and you will see where I'm coming from. Manpower is very expensive.

It's cheaper, by far, than building a stadium.

Actually, I'm sure I will. What good is textile stock, or textile companies if there are "self-reproducing technology that creates anything (as long as it obeys the laws of physiscs)?"

In 18 years? Tee hee, who's the one being unrealistic now, friend? I can see 3D printing being totally easy by then, indeed, specific parts should be pretty easy to acquire, but the actual building process would still be left up to us.

Long term exsposure to increased amounts of solar radiation and cosmic radiation.

Passive shielding. Search for the keywords, ?passive shielding? in your favorite search engine and you'll see a plethora of websites related to the technology.

Long term exsposure to zero-g, and low-g.

You're not going to be able to have any solutions for this until you try them out. This technology doesn't exist yet in any useable sense, but the concepts are still there. First; exercise, it's been shown to lower bone loss, and indeed, we'd probably be adapting NASA exercise routines whichever way we go. Second, centrifugal force drives. Again, conceptual, much like that airplane I discussed earlier. But hey, if we have the means to design that airplane, it should follow that we have the means to design a space craft with a centrifugal force drive. Your excuse is, ?we can't do this and that because we've never done it before.?

Reliable closed system bio-regenerative systems.

The previous problem does have semi-[workable]solution, but this one doesn't. This does require more research and it's admittely the most important requirement. Our current technology solution would be in hydroponics and soy production, with waste reclaimation facilities, this stuff is being worked on as we speak.

On sight construction in low g and in vaccum.

This is dooable. We have the space suite technology, that's for sure.

Psychological stress due to confinement during space exploration/living.

There has not been an incident of any psychological problems as far as I know (feel free to prove me otherwise), people are more resiliant than most realize.

Problem solving critical systems malfunctions without mission control support/guidance.

You can't rely on Mission Control when there is a 20 minute delay, so naturally the systems will have to be designed with this in mind.

Practical low-g exploration suit.

Again, we have space suit experience. And hey, the first space suit was tested flawlessly. This could lead to more manuverable suites, though. The multi-jointed one they have (but have not actually used in practice) is quite cool.

No, we will reach a point of either technological stagnation, or we will continue to grow.

Growth relies on demand, once demand is no longer an issue, growth can't continue in the ?typical? sense of the word.

The exciting question is whether or not government can force demand upon us once technology has the quality of being as plentiful as air.

Your utopian ideal is not based in reality, it is based on an interpertation of future events that may or may not happen. You are not talking about the "inevitable", you're not even talking about the probable.

Basically what I'm suggesting is inevitable, is manufacture without requiring current manufacturing support infrastructures. Machines can potentionally create a manufactured product from raw material. Is this a hard enough eventuality to accept?

If you can't accept that trival concept, then I think I'm wasting my time, as your predjuices are getting in your way.

clark · 2002-01-16 12:04:07

However, timescales are irrelevant to inevitability.

In a universe of infinite possibilites, all things are possible. Might I suggest that you label your philosphical constructs as such, so those who wish to discuss realistic ideas may do so without impining on your freedom to espouse your own personal world view.

As long as the human spirit of discovery exists there is a certian inevitability to the human race.

So if we lose that "spirit", it isn't inevitable. Isn't it arrogant to assume that we will always have this "spirit of discovery"? It is inevitable that we will die. It is inevitable that the sun will go supernova. It is inevitable that an object will fall to the ground if droped. There is nothing inevitable about the human future because it is all an unknown.

Grand though they may be, they're honest. If I have to provide evidence then there is no way to convince you.

Without evidence, or answers to my reasonable questions, your gods are empty. They hold value for only you, so don't be surprised when others do not accept your "truths" as self evident.

If you can't see around you how humanity is in a constant state of discovery, indeed, if youcan't accept that that is truely the nature of being human, then it would be a waste of time to try to convince you.

Ahh, truth! The translation: If we don't see it your way, then the problem is obviously with us, becuase after all, what you believe and think is far superior to what we might think or believe and you just can't be bothered to show ignorant we all are, and how superior you are. Thanks!

Civilization rises and falls, that is a given; it's absurd to imply that civilization has no
hope of preventing a forseeable decline. Two millennia ago, maybe, but not now.

Civilizations rise and fall....yet they have a hope of preventing their decline? It would seem history shows that civilizations cannot prevent their eventual decline.

And little history lesson, the modern nation-state system that we currently live in has only been around for 500 years- recorded human history - 5000 years - the dark ages lasted 1000 years. What aspects of modern society and civilization prevent a decline? Civilizations tend to fall when their available resources decline- we have staved this off by continual improvements in effeciency of use and greater ability to extract resources from previously immpossible areas- if this stops, or slows, then the world system collapses.

You suggest philosphers, try out world production systems, rise of the state system, macro-economics. Economics gives good insight into philosphy.

I don't think so. Colonization decreases the ammount of available local resources in order to provide capital.

There is an intital outlay of resources, which is assumed to bring in greater amounts of resources in the future. That is what all investment is, that is what all economics is, that is what the whole #### capitalistic world is founded on. I give you X now so I get X+something later. Mars fails this test

Keep trying

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-16 13:41:45

In a universe of infinite possibilites, all things are possible.

Is this some kind of solipsistic statement?

Might I suggest that you label your philosphical constructs as such, so those who wish to discuss realistic ideas may do so without impining on your freedom to espouse your own personal world view.

My view is too generalized, it's not like I'm saying ?this will happen.? I'm saying ?this will happen if this doesn't happen.? You're telling me that, ?this won't happen if something else happens.? You're just repeating my words without acknowledging that what I've stated will happen if there is nothing to stop it.

So if we lose that "spirit", it isn't inevitable. Isn't it arrogant to assume that we will always have this "spirit of discovery"?

My god man, stop putting words in my mouth. Did you even read what I said? ?Nothing can delay human progress short of a huge disastor.?

I never claimed that we would always be in a state of discovery. And I would think that if we felt one day there was nothing else to discover, that would be a huge disastor.

There is nothing inevitable about the human future because it is all an unknown.

Yes, it's unknown what will happen tomorrow in any given event. However, it's not unknown that computer chips are doubling in processing speed every 18 months. It's not unknown that manufacturing processes are making mass production cheap and easy. It's not unknown that technology worth $2000 less than 10 years ago is now worth pocket change. The only thing that is unknown is whether or not this progress can continue. And given that I've covered that, my statement is still valid.

If we don't see it your way, then the problem is obviously with us, becuase after all, what you believe and think is far superior to what we might think or believe and you just can't be bothered to show ignorant we all are, and how superior you are.

More like: I'm tired of this nonsense, since you're obviously not listening to what I'm saying and rather making assumptions about the implied.

Civilizations tend to fall when their available resources decline-

As long as we have energy we have the resources we need. Civilizations decline because of class struggle.

You suggest philosphers, try out world production systems, rise of the state system, macro-economics. Economics gives good insight into philosphy.

Oh, I have, economics were required in collage. But economics are based on psychology. Take away the demand for resources and the whole system collaspes, this is why a system like Proudhon suggests will be the only way we can co-exist with each other without destroying ourselves.

I give you X now so I get X+something later.

Right. You give me X so you get X+something later. That's why resources eventually ?deplete,? you take resources from me without losing resources from yourself. How about you let me borrow X so that I can have something and give you X back? Then I can give X to someone else, and they can do the same thing. Of course, this is inherently wrong from a psychological perspective, because we're greedy fools.

You keep trying.

clark · 2002-01-16 14:29:19

Is this some kind of solipsistic statement?

No, it is in essence the very problem of having this discussion. You maintain that if nothing prevents us from reaching a certain goal, then we will reach that certain goal...eventually. That in a nutshell is what you are telling us. So I ask, WHY are you telling us this?

I do not believe I am doing what you are doing becuase I accept the fact that the future is an UNKNOWN. As such, you cannot say anything is absoluetly "inevitable" becuase something unforseen by you, by me, or by the rest of humanity might show up to prevent the "inevitable". I can accept etrapolating from current events, but you should make that clear from the get go. You might also want to limit how far you extrapolate- look how the world has changed in the last 10 years, look how it has changed in the last 25, the last 50, the last 100...

I never claimed that we would always be in a state of discovery. And I would think that if we felt one day there was nothing else to discover, that would be a huge disastor.

You stated:

As long as the human spirit of discovery exists there is a certian inevitability to the human race.

I then asked if it was arrogant to assume that we would always have this spirit, which is implied by your statement and by your general argument. I am not putting words into your mouth, I am applying your meaning and asking for clarification.

The only thing that is unknown is whether or not this progress can continue. And given that I've covered that, my statement is still valid.

Yet your whole argument is predicated on humanity continuing this progress, which you admit is an unknown. So are you now admiting that your argument is based on an unknown (continuing technological progress)?

I'm tired of this nonsense, since you're obviously not listening to what I'm saying and rather making assumptions about the implied.

I am listening, but by your own admission you are not conveying your message as clearly as you would like. You are making a lot of statements that are based on interpertations of events or philosphy- It sounds like half of your argument is in your head and you are getting frustrated because I don't know the full meaning that you might have originally intended. Any inference I have gained from your posts is becuase I am taking your thoughts to the next logical conclusion.

As long as we have energy we have the resources we need. Civilizations decline because of class struggle.

Class struggle is the result of disparity of distribution of resources- so it still is a resource issue.

And as long as we have the resources (not just energy) for maintaing our current standard of living, we will be okay.

Oh, I have, economics were required in collage. But economics are based on psychology. Take away the demand for resources and the whole system collaspes, this is why a system like Proudhon suggests will be the only way we can co-exist with each other without destroying ourselves

There is a bit more to economics than psychology. There is and always will be a demand for resources- as long as we have a dependance for life on any given resource.

You give me X so you get X+something later. That's why resources eventually ?deplete,? you take resources from me without losing resources from yourself. How about you let me borrow X so that I can have something and give you X back? Then I can give X to someone else, and they can do the same thing.

But I have lost resources- when I gave them to you to go do something with them. As the system now stands, you borrow X with the understanding that you will pay me back X+something later- I take the risk of providing you X, you might not be able to give me anything back- you get the ability to go do something with X, you had nothing, now you have something..seems a fair and stable trade to me- that's why Mars dosen't work. Mars cannot provide X+something under our current economic model.

Why should I give you resources (X) if all I get in return is the loss of those resources for an unknown amount of time with no reward for the risk?

Risk without reward = biologicaly stupid. Millions of years of evolution has favored the biological system that places risk only for reward, becuase why risk if there is no reward? Why take a chance?

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-16 15:31:49

I can accept etrapolating from current events, but you should make that clear from the get go. You might also want to limit how far you extrapolate- look how the world has changed in the last 10 years, look how it has changed in the last 25, the last 50, the last 100...

There's no way to actually determine what could happen. There could be a World War, this is why I don't put dates or specific time scales. That would be arrogance. If I list to you the progress in pure technology that has happened in the past 20 or so years, then maybe you'll see where I'm coming from. And even then, it would be subjective and we'd be having this ridiculous argument all over again. This is why I simply generalize it down to ?inevetiblity.?

Given that civiliztion has risen and fallen numerous time, and each time technology somehow manages to exist, it's clear to me that this is going to happen. Yes, we could blow ourselves up, and yes, it could take a thousand years to get back where we are now, but it's hard for me to sit here and accept this stupid ideal that technology hasn't a chance (in any given timeline) of progressing to a point where supply and demand is no longer a question.

Yet your whole argument is predicated on humanity continuing this progress, which you admit is an unknown. So are you now admiting that your argument is based on an unknown (continuing technological progress)?

It's not unknown that humanity strives to survive through acquiring knowledge and resources. Indeed, if we did not do that we would probably be extinct by now. The ?unknown? is whether or not we can keep from blowing ourselves up or avoid any natural disastors in our current state of progress. I think most arguments about the future have to take that into account, indeed, any scientific prediction has to say, ?this could happen because of this if this doesn't happen.?

I am listening, but by your own admission you are not conveying your message as clearly as you would like.

Ironic, how I am studying AI and language is the most important aspect of it.

Class struggle is the result of disparity of distribution of resources- so it still is a resource issue.

Well, the resources are there, the problem is who owns the resources. Once (if it ever happens and the world doesn't blow itself up and such and such, since you seem to require this disclaimer) supply is larger than demand, there would be no class struggle; indeed, civilization would have much less risk to decline.

And as long as we have the resources (not just energy) for maintaing our current standard of living, we will be okay.

No, we won't, because our current standard of living relies on classes. We can't hope to reach a technological plateu without first abolishing class through equality of conditions. This means laws stating that what technology is should be free for all.

There is a bit more to economics than psychology. There is and always will be a demand for resources- as long as we have a dependance for life on any given resource.

Well, economics rely on the psychology of someone to, say, buy the newest stuff, and such and such. A car can last for years, but we're constantly compelled to buy newer things, and etc. This is a flaw in the structure of economics, because it relies on that one human thing called greed. What happens, then, when (if we don't blow ourselves up and the world becomes a distopia, etc etc) we reach a level where resources are indeed easy to come by? Economics will have to restructure themselves real quick.

And I ask you, what is the demand for air given that its supply is limitless (on the scale of things)?

I take the risk of providing you X, you might not be able to give me anything back.

You'd be unwise if you didn't make sure X was returnable.

When I was a kid my neighbor let me borrow his fence layer, it took us about a day to dig a few acres of fence posts, but he watched, just to insure that things were done right.

Why should I give you resources (X) if all I get in return is the loss of those resources for an unknown amount of time with no reward for the risk?

Those resources you provide are capital. I use your capital and return it, then I have capital. Why wouldn't you? Think about it, you're just securing resources and depleting distribution, your gain is nothing... however, if you were to build a city on this simple modification, you have unlimited growth potential.

Risk without reward = biologicaly stupid.

Heheh, what biology class have you been taking? I like this metaphor, though. If you look at multicellular organisms you'll see this organizational structure that maintains even resource distribution. Depending on the cells job, it gets a certain ammount of protien, oxygen, etc. Indeed, multicellular organisms are the perfect way to see a society with equality of conditions.

I like to think of capitalism as cancer, since cancer is a multicellular organism that reproduces and consumes resources (protiens and oxygen) endlessly, until of course it kills itself.

A declining civilization is much like a cancerous organism.

(Oh, BTW, shame on you from making me post from work!! :angry:)

clark · 2002-01-16 16:29:00

If I list to you the progress in pure technology that has happened in the past 20 or so years, then maybe you'll see where I'm coming from. And even then, it would be subjective and we'd be having this ridiculous argument all over again. This is why I simply generalize it down to ?inevetiblity.?

So you are taking a very (VERY) small subset of human history and basing your predictions on that... I understand how you derive your optimitic view, I just question the legitmacy of the process.

Given that civiliztion has risen and fallen numerous time, and each time technology somehow manages to exist, it's clear to me that this is going to happen.

We have never achieved this level of technology- or more precisely, we have never had the ability to voulantarily kill ourselves- either through nuclear war, biological contamination, world-wide pollution, or global famine caused by the breakdown of our modern day infrastrucxture (shipping & communication). We still have all of the same tendencies that we had during the Crusades, the 100 years yar, the mongols, etc- but now we have the ability to eridicate everything.

I think most arguments about the future have to take that into account, indeed, any scientific prediction has to say, ?this could happen because of this if this doesn't happen.?

Your previous posts seemed to neglect this rather important account to the point where it wasn't even addressed. What makes you think that we WON'T blow ourselves to kingdom come?

Well, the resources are there, the problem is who owns the resources.

Welcome to communism.

Once (if it ever happens and the world doesn't blow itself up and such and such, since you seem to require this disclaimer) supply is larger than demand, there would be no class struggle; indeed, civilization would have much less risk to decline.

Life is the struggle for resources in order to maintain life and perpetuate genes, if we no longer struggle for resources, then we are no longer confined to the limits of the animal kingdom. However, how do you provide a limitless supply of education? Limitmess supply of housing? Limitless supply of opportunity? We will simply move up another rung of Maslow's ladder of needs and find another "valuable commodity", won't we?

And I ask you, what is the demand for air given that its supply is limitless (on the scale of things)?

The demand is extremely high, and luckily the supply is nearly infinite- however, no one owns the means to PRODUCE air or control air, so the economic model does not apply. Now, on mars, that is NOT the case.

Those resources you provide are capital. I use your capital and return it, then I have capital. Why wouldn't you? Think about it, you're just securing resources and depleting distribution, your gain is nothing... however, if you were to build a city on this simple modification, you have unlimited growth potential.

I give you all I have for the possibility that I might get nothing in return, while you get something for nothing with the chance of making something for yourself....BAD model. Try again.

I still can't see what incentive I have for giving you my hard earned resources so you can go do something with them- isn't it better for ME to use those resources for something so I have TWICE as much as when I started? Sure, the model you suggest works for those without anything- they get all the supplies and none of the risk, but those providing the capital take all of the risk and get nothing in return.

Think of it like this: We play a game, you place $100 dollars on a number from 1-10. I spin a wheel, any number the wheel picks is a loser- all others are a push (that is, you get to keep your money). Would you play this game? You have no chance of ever inceasing the value of your money, and you have a chance (however small it might be) that you will lose your resources.

This game is your economic proposal as it now stands- please tell me you don't really believe in this.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-18 00:56:22

So you are taking a very (VERY) small subset of human history and basing your predictions on that... I understand how you derive your optimitic view, I just question the legitmacy of the process.

Well, yeah, and I wholeheartedly admit that. But it's not just based on our releatively recent technological advancement (considering the history of the human race), we're talking about millennia of humans using tools and such. It really is our nature to apply knowledge in a practical and useful way (which is the raw definition of technology).

Anyway, you remarked that I have an optimistic view. Well, Hellen Keller said, ?No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new heaven to the human spirit.?

Your previous posts seemed to neglect this rather important account to the point where it wasn't even addressed. What makes you think that we WON'T blow ourselves to kingdom come?

Good point. I'm faced with this problem every day I wake up. Especially lately. However, it would be pure melancholy to think of knowledge as a thing that destroys itself, if one has the knowledge to blow themselves up, one must also have the knowledge to know that they're capable of blowing themselves up. I'm not going to discredit the human race because they have the knowledge to blow themselves up! I'm going to assume that they can coexist with knowledge, because if they can't, there is nothing to discuss.

Welcome to communism.

Another ?inevetiblity??

However, how do you provide a limitless supply of education? Limitless supply of housing? Limitless supply of opportunity?

Exactly what about is it about ?limitless resources? that impedes any of this? I think you fail to recognize that once conditions are equal for all, most of the ?problems? our society face are easily fixed.

You were disgusted by the prospect of ?randomly selected bureaucrats,? however, I think you give these ?bureaucrats? too much power and not enough credit. The first thing you have to understand is that most problems faced by these ?bureaucrats? are quite easy to asses and fix, and are necessarily rare in a society where equality of conditions exists.

For example, most problems faced by police officers are domestic, that is, they can be solved by a neighbor or a friend just as easily as a police officer. The problems that require more force are caused by class struggle not civil disputes.

Another example is that most medical problems are primarily the cause of poor conditions. Your body needs a well rounded diet and proper hygiene, and when it doesn't your body stops functioning normally. Work related injuries would all but disappear since work would no longer be an issue in the classic sense of the word.

The main problem with these ?bureaucratic? civil servants is that many people would inaccurately argue that laws stating: ?One person in so many and such should be a civil servant of such and such for however long such and such? do not allow us enough freedom. I disagree, as we have these kinds of laws anyway, but in the case of our current situation people are civil servants not because they want to, but because they have to to survive. I would rather live in a world where people who did their jobs did them because they wanted to, not because they were in a constant struggle to survive.

Anyway, not to say that I am an expert in AI, but in the future I believe operations will be done by an AI surgeon (aided by nenotechnology). God knows I wouldn't trust a person to give me a heart transplant when an AI could do it with unheard of precision.

We will simply move up another rung of Maslow's ladder of needs and find another "valuable commodity", won't we?

Who's the one discussing the nature of humanity now? Am I to argue that what you're saying is preposterous and not based on reality and so and so forth? I won't of course. What more can one get once they reach self actualization?

You'd have to reach self actualization in a highly technoligcal world, or you'd explode in a ball of insanity.

Like I said, ?the tyrrany of the individual over itself is pretty severe.?

The demand is extremely high, and luckily the supply is nearly infinite- however, no one owns the means to PRODUCE air or control air, so the economic model does not apply. Now, on mars, that is NOT the case.

Right, air has so much of a supply that demand is irrelevant. Or rather, there is so much air no one can control it to force demand upon someone. Not to stray from my point, did you know that DeBeers secures diamond resources in order to stimulate demand? Without this regulation diamonds would be worthless. (In the mid 90's DeBeers started tagging their diamonds, since they saw flawless artifical diamond production on the horizon.)

Wouldn't it follow that the economic model would not apply to a future civilization where technology was just as plentiful? You have a choice, force demand, or make it law that all have equality of conditions.

I give you all I have for the possibility that I might get nothing in return, while you get something for nothing with the chance of making something for yourself....BAD model. Try again.

Proudhon argues [t]ools and capital, land and labor, considered individually and abstractly, are not, literally speaking, productive. The proprietor who asks to be rewarded for the use of a tool, or the productive power of his land, takes for granted, then, that which is radically false; namely, that capital produces by its own effort,--and, in taking pay for this imaginary product, he literally receives something for nothing.

Maybe you got it backwards? I mean, how is that textile manufacturing facility helping anyone if someone isn't out there extracting carbon and hydrogen to make UHMWPE or whatever?

Isn't it better for ME to use those resources for something so I have TWICE as much as when I started?

Right, of course you could be out there doing something with it, but if that was your prerogative you wouldn't even be considering sharing your capital. The point of sharing capital is to keep it in a constant state of production, perhaps you can go on forever acquiring more and more yourself, but growth would be more distributed (and thus better) had everyone who had the capablity to use your capital used it for their own means.

Are you a lonely person? Is it really all about you?

You have no chance of ever inceasing the value of your money, and you have a chance (however small it might be) that you will lose your resources.

I don't gamble.

But anyway, you confuse proprietor with producer, so your arguments are invalid.

Did you ever get around to reading some Proudhon?

clark · 2002-01-18 12:16:14

But it's not just based on our releatively recent technological advancement (considering the history of the human race), we're talking about millennia of humans using tools and such. It really is our nature to apply knowledge in a practical and useful way (which is the raw definition of technology).

Well, we ARE a tool making species- and given that evolution favored the "smarter" monkey this isn't much of a surprise. However, evolution favored a tool making mokey that used tools to further survival- which is the search for neccessary resources to further our own lives and genes. So really, our nature is to apply knowledge in practical and useful ways that further our own survival and improves our ability to keep or get resources- technology has only made us more efficient and deadlier- not better.

Well, Hellen Keller said, ?No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new heaven to the human spirit.?

Nether did the optimist- the realist beat them both out.

However, it would be pure melancholy to think of knowledge as a thing that destroys itself, if one has the knowledge to blow themselves up, one must also have the knowledge to know that they're capable of blowing themselves up.

You would think so wouldn't you- however, I am reminded of an anecdote. Scientists working on the Manhattan Project during world war 2 didn't know if the A-Bomb would be a limited explosion, or if it would cause a chain reaction in the atmosphere and burn off all of the atmosphere... Look no further than a five year old to understand how the human mind works- we touch, try, experiment...then learn.

I'm not going to discredit the human race because they have the knowledge to blow
themselves up! I'm going to assume that they can coexist with knowledge, because if they can't, there is nothing to discuss.

Why do you assume that we can coexsist with knowledge when all science and technology has been used to further out ability to destroy?

Another ?inevetiblity?? [communism]

Marx seems to think so... and given the direction of global capitalism, growing disparity in standard of living between third and first world nations, further automation of basic labor, shrinking middle class... I am inclined to believe that a prolaterian revolution (the kind Marx really envisoned) is an eventuallity if current global trends continue unabated.

Exactly what about is it about ?limitless resources? that impedes any of this? I think you fail to recognize that once conditions are equal for all, most of the ?problems? our society face are easily fixed.

I recognize your point, and I conceed that given "limitless resources" that many of our social ailments will be alleviated- however I am trying to point out that not all resources are, or can be limitless. There isn't a limitless supply of beach front property. There isn't a limitless supply of quality education. There isn't a limitless supply of tickets to a concert, etc...

For example, most problems faced by police officers are domestic, that is, they can be solved by a neighbor or a friend just as easily as a police officer. The problems that require more force are caused by class struggle not civil disputes.

Murder, rape, arson, fraud, smuggling, slander, libel, child pornography, assault and battery, disorderly conduct, drunk in public, speeding.... you're telling me things like this are the result of class struggle, or are these things that "neighbors" can deal with effectively and uniformily?

God knows I wouldn't trust a person to give me a heart transplant when an AI could do it with unheard of precision.

Everyone has a personal prefrence, more power to you. But just because a machine does something, that does not neccessarily make that something inherently superior to what a human can do.

What more can one get once they reach self actualization?

Self-actualization is an on-going process- you can never "reach" it in the classic sense- like reaching a state of nirvana, it comes and goes depending.

You'd have to reach self actualization in a highly technoligcal world, or you'd explode in a ball of insanity.

Self-actualization is not a requirement for life- it is a philosphical understanding of motivation/drive.

The point of sharing capital is to keep it in a constant state of production, perhaps you can go on forever acquiring more and more yourself, but growth would be more distributed (and thus better) had everyone who had the capablity to use your capital used it for their own means.

But once again, why should I assume all the risk for someone else to recieve all the gain? It's not a matter of greed here, it is basic common sense. I have something, why should I risk that something for someone else if there is no direct benefit to me?

And I am also struck by the fact that a similar process is already in place- it's called a bank! I leave my money in a bank (money is a representation of work, or resources). The bank then promises to protect my resources and give me a small return on leaving my money (resources) with them. They then in turn allow other people to use my money (resources) to buy houses, cars, go to school, etc.- for a fee. The bank assumes the risk, yet gains control of my resources and uses them to help others build there own capital- which they do by borrowing from the bank and paying the bank back what they took plus some- the bank then pays me and takes what's left over. But at least in this system, there is an incentive to allow people to lend- in the model you suggest, it is flat out stupid. I don't think I am misunderstanding- the foundation upon which this theory rests is untenable and dosen't answer enough questions.

But anyway, you confuse proprietor with producer, so your arguments are invalid.

How am I confused?

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-18 16:13:46

Scientists working on the Manhattan Project during world war 2 didn't know if the A-Bomb would be a limited explosion, or if it would cause a chain reaction in the atmosphere and burn off all of the atmosphere.

A few scientists whimsically believed that the whole atmosphere would burn off because of it, however, it was known almost certainly that there was enough nitrogen in the atmosphere to keep a chain reaction from happening. I've heard this story before, but the majority of scientists knew it would happen the way it did (though they miscalculated on how bright it would be). This is a fairly good point, however, it should be noted that ?trial and error? isn't about using knowledge, but rather gaining.

Why do you assume that we can coexsist with knowledge when all science and technology has been used to further out ability to destroy?

Don't you? I mean, c'mon, we're scaring ourselves to death here. One person builds a nuclear bomb, the other builds a defense shield, the other builds satellites to shoot down other satellites. Don't you find it ironic that our own fear of technology makes creating destructive technology economical? Granted, the more destructive technology that's out there, the ?higher? the chances that we'll use it, but really, it doesn't get much worse than nuclear, so as long as the technoligies are fighting against themselves we'll be okay (which is a scary statement, I know).

[...] a prolaterian revolution (the kind Marx really envisoned) is an eventuallity if current global trends continue unabated.

So you can talk about eventualities but I can't? No fair.

I agree, though, and even though you don't want to admit it, anarchists are good for the cause.

There isn't a limitless supply of <insert luxury here>.

Wouldn't it be quite a boring world where everyone wanted <insert luxury here>? People who are self actualized don't need <insert luxury here>. Indeed, they're out there doing things they want, not worrying about where they live. I suspect this future world will be full of travelers.

[...] you're telling me things like this are the result of class struggle [?]

Most of those, yes, indeed. I'm not a psychologist, but it doesn't take an idiot to realize those classifications are of very troubled people. Let me guess, you think an arsonist gets his psychotic urges out of no where? (Same goes for all of what you listed, I suspect?) I beg to differ, as there was something related to his upbringing that triggered that behavior. (I do realize that many arsonists and such are actually from middle-upper class households, however, had their parents not been working their asses off out of greed or necessity, maybe they could have paid more attention to them.)

And even if there were ?bigger? problems, all you would do is get the assistance of other SAOs. You would have a daily log and things of that nature, but the job should be quite relaxing. (I should have addressed this, though, because I don't think the future is a utopia in that respect, there will still be problems. There will undoubtedly be murders and such, and I didn't mean to say that there wouldn't, but you even have to admit they would be less.)

But just because a machine does something, that does not neccessarily make that something inherently superior to what a human can do.

Well, I wouldn't let it if I didn't think it was superior.

And I would think that a machine could handle way more input than a human. Humans mostly go by visual interpretation of what they're working on, however, a machine could monitor blood pressure, pulse rate, and even pain killers (all operations could, in effect, be waking-operations- scary thought, I know).

Self-actualization is an on-going process- you can never "reach" it in the classic sense- like reaching a state of nirvana, it comes and goes depending.

Self-actualization is just realizing ones full potential. And you would think that when you realize your full potential you stop relying on material things to make you happy. This is getting deep, though, and since I'm admittely not self-actualized, I won't go further.

Self-actualization is not a requirement for life.

I think it is when your whole life was about trying to survive on an 10 hour work day with bills out the wazoo. How would you feel if you woke up one day and your life had changed completely? You had no work to go to (indeed, the job of shoving dynamite in the ground to dig up iron ore was replaced by an AI just weeks earlier, yesterday you finally got off your vacation and you realize that there's nothing really you can do- the coming weeks you're going to be taking a course on how to operate the AI... but you're going to have a lot more time on your hands than you realize...).

I have something, why should I risk that something for someone else if there is no direct benefit to me?

You're assuming that you'd be taking more risk than you would be taking using the equipment yourself, that's pretty egotistical. The point is, if no one is using your equipment, it's stagnating, it's doing nothing. Indeed, there is a limit to how much one person (or a group of people) can exploit N ammount of resources. Unless everything is controlled by AI, but then it would get to that point where you'd wonder who was the master of who.

With regard to your bank scenerio. The bank assumes no risk in the classic sense of the word. The bank needs your money simply because it doesn't have enough cash floating around. They pay you back only as an incentive. Not because you should be ?rewarded? for the risk. At least, no bank have I went to have I had to sign a disclaimer stating that my money ?risked? being lost forever.

[...] in the model you suggest, it is flat out stupid.

How long can you go exploiting your own resources? The ?incentive? is helping out your neighbor. The question really should be; why wouldn't you once you reached your full potential?

I'm annoyed that we're arguing this since the point should be moot once technology is plentiful. It's about either forcing demand (like you're attemtping to do), or making anti-proprietor laws. The problem really is about convincing people that what they have isn't what they are. Self-actualization, anyone?

I mean, really clark, what are you going to do with all of those resources when someone else is bound to share theirs? You have no hope of forcing demand in the future.

How am I confused?

Well, obviously you think you take more risk lending out your equipment than you would keeping it for yourself, and you think you should be rewarded for that. Tell you what, I'll buy your equipment off of you, use it for a few days, and sell it back to you at a higher price (since I replaced that worn out actuator a few days before), sound fair?

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-19 23:29:47

I have a question for Clark, I think it is very important. Who exactly do you feel we must convince to go to Mars?

The reason that this question is so vital is not hard to understand. It seems to me that Clark consistently talks about convincing people to go to Mars, and cites economic arguments why you wouldn't want to go, or political arguments why it is completely worthless, etc. And while these arguments do have their place, and they definitely apply to a large portion of human society, they are fundamentally flawed because, by using them, we are trying to convince people who simply will not pioneer Mars anyway. No, we aren't going to convince huge corporations to send humans to Mars for a tremendous profit, No, we aren't going to convince government if important people believe we are too far away or it is too expensive. But, that is just it. We are trapped here, trapped in a logical loop that never ends. But the solution is simple. We're going (and that applies to whoever is going, whether it be the Mars Society, the United States, or somebody else), and whatever we think is the truth because we made it so.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-01-07 12:02:28

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#2 2002-01-07 16:31:49

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#3 2002-01-08 00:14:21

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#4 2002-01-08 10:21:05

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#5 2002-01-08 16:14:55

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#6 2002-01-09 00:23:38

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#7 2002-01-09 09:39:19

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#8 2002-01-09 13:09:33

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#9 2002-01-09 13:24:43

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#10 2002-01-09 16:00:27

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#11 2002-01-09 16:24:43

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#12 2002-01-09 17:03:17

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#13 2002-01-14 15:05:10

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#14 2002-01-15 08:16:41

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#15 2002-01-15 16:08:35

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#16 2002-01-16 00:55:55

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#17 2002-01-16 12:04:07

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#18 2002-01-16 13:41:45

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#19 2002-01-16 14:29:19

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#20 2002-01-16 15:31:49

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#21 2002-01-16 16:29:00

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#22 2002-01-18 00:56:22

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#23 2002-01-18 12:16:14

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#24 2002-01-18 16:13:46

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

#25 2002-01-19 23:29:47

Re: Mars, Government, and Rights

Board footer