Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

BWhite · 2004-08-03 14:50:43

"US Confederate" General eh? :;):

Heck, the US Army named a http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-arm … t.htm]tank after him, didn't they?

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-03 14:55:00

Heck, the US Army named a tank after him, didn't they?

Fair enough.

smurf975 · 2004-08-03 14:55:10

Don't forget that non western families tend to have more children. However this can due to wealth or the lack of it.

But Catholics and Muslims (not sure about hindus) should not be affected by greater personal wealth when it comes to family size (in general of course).

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-03 14:57:50

Don't forget that non western families tend to have more children. However this can due to wealth or the lack of it.

And if they get out there before us in large numbers we're in trouble, from a West-centered demographic and social standpoint. It's ours to lose for the moment.

smurf975 · 2004-08-03 14:59:08

I think that literacy is a developed nation such as the US will not change much. As I read once that the government of the US actually doesn't want a 0-1% unemployment rate as this will just drive up the wages, cost of living and the US will loose it competition posistion with other nations.

High School dropouts are needed as who will clean the offices of the upper middle class, who will work at the supermarkets?

You can solve this by importing people from poorer nations but if you don't want to loose your heritage as those people will make other people of another culture its not recommended. And perhaps they will also send a part of their wages to their homecountries which is a loss for the American economy.

---

Actually I prefer the Chinese system of modernizing the financiel system over the Russian shock plans. Actually I kind of regret that the Russians kicked Gorbatjov out like that. Not that I surported communisme, its just that I think gradual changes are better then fast onces. I think the Russians should have had more patients but they all wanted to drink coca cola and eat a hamburger now. I think this fast change has already it negative effects and can get worse.

clark · 2004-08-03 15:04:54

If we win the cultural war here on Earth, and make the Chinese into good little Americans, wouldn't we still win?

If you can't win the race, change the rules of the game.

Grypd · 2004-08-03 15:07:02

We can use the Napoleon selling the Lousiana territory as an example of what seems to be happening now.

Napoleon sold lousiana as he was concentrating on France and Europe and did not have the vision to see what is possible and he needed the money.It was too far away and he had no use for it now. This sort of is like what is happening now the moon and mars are there but no one has the vision or the willingness to spend the required cash.

As soon as one nation begins to create bases and colonies it will result in a race by other nations and groups to join in.

Grypd · 2004-08-03 15:08:55

Yes it is ours to lose so we should be moving now before lose more ground.

BWhite · 2004-08-03 15:09:16

If we win the cultural war here on Earth, and make the Chinese into good little Americans, wouldn't we still win?
If you can't win the race, change the rules of the game.

A quote from a spacepolitics comment thread:

My friend Doug's older brother Rob, an Air Force retiree, thinks national security, missile defense, surveillance, and national pride from showing our strength thru force projection and taking space for America is the only worthy thing to be done in space anytime soon, if ever. When we’ve secured space for US dominance, then we can explore, let entrepreneurs take us wherever they can, and worry about getting to Mars. But not before then.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000263.html]Link - - Since I think Iraq might be "a bridge too far" Heh!

I am not so sure we can accomplish this when the Chinese have nukes and even the dastardly French have 400 H-bombs with MIRV warheads. Those Jerry-Lewis lovers might still nuke us in their rage over Le Big Mac.

clark · 2004-08-03 15:13:00

Nice dodge Bill, but my point remains. Is it the meme's that are important, or what the children look like?

As for the nukes- come on, we have nukes. They have nukes. We all have nukes!

The Air Force retiree has a point. No sense in investing trillions to watch someone else point a gun and take it from us. No sense in creating something that can be held hostage at a later date.

Space isn't going anywhere. What's the rush?

BWhite · 2004-08-03 15:13:22

We can use the Napoleon selling the Lousiana territory as an example of what seems to be happening now.
Napoleon sold lousiana as he was concentrating on France and Europe and did not have the vision to see what is possible and he needed the money.It was too far away and he had no use for it now. This sort of is like what is happening now the moon and mars are there but no one has the vision or the willingness to spend the required cash.
As soon as one nation begins to create bases and colonies it will result in a race by other nations and groups to join in.

IMHO this is why the Beltway Boys are not so eager to leave LEO. Starting this race opens Pandora's Box.

ISS/STS allows America to defer thinking about such issues and so long as we spend all our space budget on ISS/STS and robots, the Russians, French and Chinese can defer their anxiety about our lead in space.

smurf975 · 2004-08-03 15:16:00

ISS/STS allows America to defer thinking about such issues and so long as we spend all our space budget on ISS/STS and robots, the Russians, French and Chinese can defer their anxiety about our lead in space.

I guess with the French you mean the ESA??

Well I hate to break it to you then but the Canadians (your close neighbours) are closely working together with the ESA on future projects.

Gennaro · 2004-08-03 15:16:27

I see plenty of dynamism within our society now. I'm just not sure whether it is a type which would lead to productive development vs. possible degenerative changes, analogous to the changes which led to the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.

There are basically two forms of societal change. Those which spontaneously follow as inherit in the "logics" of the system, and those that respond to challenges from outside or such aforementioned system intrinsic factors.
In the case of the Roman Empire, the shift from an aristocratic republic to a permanent dictatorship was more of the latter 'creative' type in my opinion, not the other way around. If the chaos and ever harsher class conflict of the aristocratic oligarchy had simply been allowed to run its course, it would have ended in fatally weakening the empire, leaving it open to disintegration and foreign occupation. Our present day civilization would never have evolved.
By installing a dictatorship, fundamentally based on merit and not class affilation, this danger was avoided and the empire could prevail for several centuries. The high point of Roman civilization is the era from Vespasian to Marcus Aurelius in my opinon, not the anachronistic chaos which was the late republic.
Its final downfall, again, was not fundamentally due to internal weakness, there were several low and high points during the realm of the caesars, but the previously unprecedented magnitude of outside military pressure (the migration period).

What leads you to the conclusion that our society may be "crystallizing"?

The stasis of values/points of view, consumer articles/behaviour and scientific enquiry (trying to adjust by epicycles rather than trying to understand what the world is really like), re-cycling of cultural expression, thought police (PC-ness), obviously imploding world economy and cultural entropy following from demographic dilution.

I wrote:
In a democracy, without open means of power, stability relies instead on control of mind and spirit. It moves inside the flesh of people. That's the dead end of democracy as well as its logical conclusion.

I'm not sure I understand this passage. Power may be overt or covert. Usually a mixture of both is necessary for its effective exercise. I do agree that if someone ever came up with a truly effective way of controlling mind and spirit, then a deadly stability could ensue. Some kinds of stability are good, and necessary for the effective operation of society, e.g. basic principles of justice and social interaction. Other kinds are deadly, such as the inability of traditional Chinese civilization to adapt to economic and technological change. I don't think that a deadly stability is the necessary result of an open society. In fact, such a consequence is less likely to occur.

Not of an open society, no. Any society can in principle be an open society, even a non-democratic one, but democracy is intrinsically geared into eventually evolving into a closed society. This is due both to the absence of outer/autonomus means of control as well as the professionalisation of the political role.
There is already an effective and omnipotent tool to control mind and spirit (read: Geist). It's called mass-media, presently in the hands of a limited same-thinking category of people, no one has elected. It produces and re-produces ways of seeing, not only restricted to the present but in relation to history and the future as well.

The perspective I use here is a dialectic one: "there's only black and white in dialectics, you either hate or you love someone" in the words of Dennis Hopper, because you are trying to identify the decisive, qualitative essence. And the first law of dialectics is that everything turns into its own apparent opposite.

clark · 2004-08-03 15:19:08

Uh oh, here comes Derrida! :laugh:

smurf975 · 2004-08-03 15:19:39

Don't forget that non western families tend to have more children. However this can due to wealth or the lack of it.
And if they get out there before us in large numbers we're in trouble, from a West-centered demographic and social standpoint. It's ours to lose for the moment.

Well yes it could be a problem but still doesn't mean that those cultures will dominate.

Lets say the Chinese will engage in a Sjovet, Maoist style of five year plan. Which goals is to send 10.000 Chinese to Mars to start a colony.

They will use forced labour to realize this plan and millions of Chinese will die due to this and also due to fact that all resources of the nations are diverted to this ambitious project.

They are sucessful and the Chinese on Mars live happy. But what happens after this? The country is now like in state after a huge war. They can't do anything anymore.

While the other countries were more modest and first designed cheap space vehicles that can be mass produces and eventually ship millions of people to Mars. Its like saying in 1497 that the Chinese will colonize America using rafts. Also didn't most Americans come to the US using steam powered ships while the colony was long known?

But still this isn't all. Like on Earth the culture that dominates is not really the richest (else the Saudis and Kuwaitis would) but those that in some way appeal to allot of different peoples and are advanced and have the best schools and technolgies and personal freedoms. But also just why does everyone all over the world buy American music?

Grypd · 2004-08-03 15:20:03

Well yes with Russia and Esa being very friendly it sort of begs the question who is leading the space race Esa/Russia or the US. Frankly im not sure

BWhite · 2004-08-03 15:23:07

ISS/STS allows America to defer thinking about such issues and so long as we spend all our space budget on ISS/STS and robots, the Russians, French and Chinese can defer their anxiety about our lead in space.
I guess with the French you mean the ESA??
Well I hate to break it to you then but the Canadians (your close neighbours) are closely working together with the ESA on future projects.

For the record, I am a Kerry supporter and an internationalist. Thus, I am unconcerned about this.

Palomar · 2004-08-03 15:23:17

And the first law of dialectics is that everything turns into its own apparent opposite.

*Not necessarily. Depends on the degree to which something goes.

"All things in moderation" would seem to prevent it.

--Cindy

Morris · 2004-08-03 15:24:28

. But, lacking anonymity, there needs to be a fairly reliable way of distinguishing between those who have made a mistake but can also make a long-term contribution and those who can't stay out of trouble anywhere for a significant period of time.
We could tattoo them.

<chuckle>. But I wasn't referring to distinguishing them once they reach Mars, but the problem of determining which they are before allowing them to go. How about a heavy background screening to come up with potential candidates. Then distribution of the screening report including the details of crimes committed on the one hand, and positive contributions on the other, to all settlement inhabitants. Then everyone can observe a taped interview with the candidate, followed by a vote on whether to invite her or not.

You refrence Russia as a labratory in this regard, I would posit that the Middle East is as much so. Inner cities within the US also. The wholesale education of a group of people without an outlet by which to avail themselves of their new found potential for opportunity leads to a greater number of disenfranchised.

Yes. This whole section is very interesting. Thanks for reminding us of what happened to the intellectuals during the cultural revolution.

Love your phrase, "Big Brother dystopia."

So the question is, how does colonizing Mars or space help to reduce the number of disenfranchised? How does it inhibit statism? If anything, it may increase it as a portion of the population feels that they can never take part in this opportunity (only a small fraction of humans will ever have this chance).

Because Martian exploration and settlement will be part of a system of scientific and technological development, most of the benefits of which will be seen in greater opportunities back on Earth.

But, the feeling of opportunity can be enhanced by basing settlement chances on scrupulously fair competitive examinations of knowledge, reliability and efficiency of performance, stability of behavior with respect to the requirements of the settler's environment, etc. Maximize actual knowledge and proven performance, minimize, or even eliminate, relatively insignificant formal certifications.

The practice of disability management will be exceptionally interesting but will probably be limited, at least for a long time, to those who developed their disability while on Mars. There could be some exceptions, for example, what if a particular problem required talents only possessed by someone like Stephen Hawking?

clark · 2004-08-03 15:29:03

*Not necessarily. Depends on the degree to which something goes.
"All things in moderation" would seem to prevent it.

I will probably regret this.

Everything is defined by it's opposite. You like a certain color because it not another color. "moderation" is no different as it defined by it's opposite- gluttony/over the top/indulgence. Moderation is also a sliding value with no real contextual basis by which to actually define itself.

A "moderate" drinker is defined as someone who drinks less than a drunk, but more than a tee-totaler. Without the opposite corallary, there is no understanding- no exsistence in essence.

My friend is defined as not my enemy. My enemy as not my friend. Ying yang, exsistence of good requires the neccessary exsistence of evil (the only way to escape the dilaetical is to disolve the complete essence of duality)

Oh yeah, Mars will not act as a catalyst.
:laugh:

smurf975 · 2004-08-03 15:30:36

In a democracy, without open means of power, stability relies instead on control of mind and spirit. It moves inside the flesh of people. That's the dead end of democracy as well as its logical conclusion.

Isn't democracy just dictatorship by the majority and fasisme dictatorship by the minority?

BWhite · 2004-08-03 15:34:07

Don't forget that non western families tend to have more children. However this can due to wealth or the lack of it.
And if they get out there before us in large numbers we're in trouble, from a West-centered demographic and social standpoint. It's ours to lose for the moment.
Well yes it could be a problem but still doesn't mean that those cultures will dominate.
Lets say the Chinese will engage in a Sjovet, Maoist style of five year plan. Which goals is to send 10.000 Chinese to Mars to start a colony.
They will use forced labour to realize this plan and millions of Chinese will die due to this and also due to fact that all resources of the nations are diverted to this ambitious project.

Have a lottery. Winners get to go to Mars and escape the "one child" policy.

Only workers who exceed production quotas can enter the lottery. IMHO plenty of people will work unpaid overtime without being forced to do so.

= = =

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5380736/?GT1=4244]Relevant link?

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-03 15:36:45

Ok, I just wanted to expand on what I thought was a rather thoughtprovoking statement. . . .

I wrote:
In a democracy, without open means of power, stability relies instead on control of mind and spirit. It moves inside the flesh of people. That's the dead end of democracy as well as its logical conclusion.

Yes; what if the government is not an democracy? The will of the french people did some pretty bad stuff to themselves in the french revolution. The American Government is more of a republic than a democracy (Senators where chosen by the states until fairly recently) and is made in such a way that protects the people from themselves. If a "true" democracy exsisted, then it would quickly distingrate from lack of order and become more or less anarchy. Not everyone can run a government, and not everyone should have something to do with government. For example, if you rode a bus, would you trust just anyone to be your driver? What if a suicidal drunk wanted to drive? Of course it would limit your freedom to drive buses to implement rules pertaining as to who could drive your bus. But the alternative to that would be worse.

Obuiously, if a person really, really wanted to become a bus driver, he/she could simply take a class, recieve certification and drive away. But the rules ensure that the interest is genuine, and the ablity conssumerate with that interest.

smurf975 · 2004-08-03 15:40:16

Ok, I just wanted to expand on what I thought was a rather thoughtprovoking statement. . . .
I wrote:
In a democracy, without open means of power, stability relies instead on control of mind and spirit. It moves inside the flesh of people. That's the dead end of democracy as well as its logical conclusion.
Yes; what if the government is not an democracy? The will of the french people did some pretty bad stuff to themselves in the french revolution. The American Government is more of a republic than a democracy (Senators where chosen by the states until fairly recently) and is made in such a way that protects the people from themselves. If a "true" democracy exsisted, then it would quickly distingrate from lack of order and become more or less anarchy. Not everyone can run a government, and not everyone should have something to do with government. For example, if you rode a bus, would you trust just anyone to be your driver? What if a suicidal drunk wanted to drive? Of course it would limit your freedom to drive buses to implement rules pertaining as to who could drive your bus. But the alternative to that would be worse.
Obuiously, if a person really, really wanted to become a bus driver, he/she could simply take a class, recieve certification and drive away. But the rules ensure that the interest is genuine, and the ablity conssumerate with that interest.

Sounds like what the communist used to say when asked why they didn't have free elections in their country. "The people are not able to decide for them selfs whats good."

I find that so much crap.

---

Grypd · 2004-08-03 15:41:04

Quote Smurf975 Aug 03 2004, 17:19

But still this isnt all. like on Earth the culture that dominates is not really the richest(else the Saudis and Kuwaitis would) but those that in some way appeal to to allotof different peoples and are advanced and have the best schools and personal technologies and freedoms

Using the Saudis as an example they are not the richest there upper class is but the majority of the population are poor and undereducated. It is for this reason and the lack of trust the Saudis upper class have for there own citizens that they employ so many foreigners to do the jobs they need. This means the Saudis are consumers just not producers and everything that they need is purchased and when the oil runs out.

A succesful society must be a general society and is capable of reacting to new enviroments allowing advantage to be taken. Also the society must be of a sufficient size to allow enough trained population to allow it to be a success. And it must stay the course. Holland did have colonies in the Americas and also in Africa and a lot in Asia, but with trouble at home and with a political union with Britain it decided to do away with its smaller American colonies, giving them to Britain.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-08-03 14:50:43

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#27 2004-08-03 14:55:00

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#28 2004-08-03 14:55:10

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#29 2004-08-03 14:57:50

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#30 2004-08-03 14:59:08

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#31 2004-08-03 15:04:54

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#32 2004-08-03 15:07:02

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#33 2004-08-03 15:08:55

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#34 2004-08-03 15:09:16

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#35 2004-08-03 15:13:00

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#36 2004-08-03 15:13:22

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#37 2004-08-03 15:16:00

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#38 2004-08-03 15:16:27

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#39 2004-08-03 15:19:08

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#40 2004-08-03 15:19:39

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#41 2004-08-03 15:20:03

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#42 2004-08-03 15:23:07

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#43 2004-08-03 15:23:17

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#44 2004-08-03 15:24:28

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#45 2004-08-03 15:29:03

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#46 2004-08-03 15:30:36

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#47 2004-08-03 15:34:07

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#48 2004-08-03 15:36:45

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#49 2004-08-03 15:40:16

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#50 2004-08-03 15:41:04

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

Board footer