A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

A.J.Armitage · 2002-09-21 22:48:59

Reading NovaMarsollia's remarks, it's hard to find anything worth dealing with in an intellectual way. His chief skill is using prolixity and an alternation of postmodern left boilerplate, envirolese, and pseudo-officialese to hide the basic poverty of his thought. This is a guy who thinks that sending Neil Armstrong to the moon instead of Rigoberta Menchu makes going to space racist. There are a few things he says that can be dealt with by arguments, and I'll deal with them before going on to looking at the peculiar mentality he represents.

1. His arguments, such as they are. First is his most recent argument, the bug one. Apparently he thinks even going to Mars it violates the "Prime Directive" to not interfere with alien life. Well now, I don't recall ever being issued such a directive. Since when are orders issued to fictional characters binging in real life? And even within Star Trek, IIRC it only applied to intelligent life. But now our microbe-hugger has a problem with "privileging" the interests of people over the lives of germs. And I haven't seen any argument for why that's such a bad thing. Maybe I missed it, given how much time he has to mis-spend, but as far as I can tell the best he's come up with is the fact that it's the hard-core environmentalist position. Some of us consider that a mark against it.

Second is his argument about property. Apparently, some treaty says that Mars belongs to everyone. Okay, fair enough. I'd like to sell my portion. What, I can't sell it? That's an odd kind of property, then. If I can't sell it, can I settle on it? No? You mean I can neither sell nor use it? And neither can anyone else? Sounds to me like Mars is owned by no-one, not everyone. And this argument is a rationalization for keeping it that way, and nothing more. Scrap the treaty.

And finally, participation. Not everyone can be involved in space, therefore no one should be. Not everyone can profit from space (unless there are redistribution schemes that would have the -- intended -- effect of killing space exploration and settlement), therefore no one should. Not everyone can have children... Come on. This is just nuts. And anyway, the only way participation in space can reach mass levels is to build consumer-friendly infrastructure. As always, a few will open the way for many.

2. But the best way of looking at his position is to psychoanalyse him. His burst of posts show signs of being based on a strong emotional reaction, not on a thought-out position. If I read the chronology right, he began with posts simply reacting against the idea of going to Mars. It "hasn't got any social, economic or environmental legitimacy." No argument for it, just a bald assertion. Then he went to the participation thing, then finally he hit on the microbe-hugging. There's an emotional reaction there searching for a rationale. He also involves himself in contradiction in a way typical of simple emotionalism. Who cares about how participation and profit works itelf out if we shouldn't go in the first place? And who cares if we should go if there's no possibility of it since we're just dreamers destined to be left in a corner of nutty history?

In general, I'm not a fan of his thought, but Nietzsche has his type pegged. He's a devotee of slave morality. His reaction is against success. This is, by the way, why he hates the United States. Success, he feels, is evil, and therefore the most successful country in history must be especially evil. Going to Mars inspires revulsion because it's a sign of success, since only a wealthy and advanced civilization can do it and only a vigorous civilization can summon up the will to such a great deed, a success in itself, since it's an engineering marvel, and, worst of all, a source of future success. Achievement, success, immortal glory, striving toward a noble goal: bad! His comments show signs of his being what called a "transnational progressive", and the tranzis are, fundamentally, opposed to life. At every turn, they choose contraction over expansion (why, expansion would be imperialism), the primitive over the technological, poverty over wealth. They are, as Nietzche wrongly described Christianity, " life's nausea and disgust with life."

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-21 23:08:14

Yeah, his logic with regard to the treaty is and was just stupid. I believe he is trolling. And I would bet that a lot of his really lengthy posts were actually taken from somewhere else, and not written by himself when he posted them.

At least I got a few posts out of arguing with him, while alleviating my boredom on a weekend afternoon.

I sent a post to Adrian about him, as I didn't want to clutter the board with bitching, but you summed him up pretty well. Thanks.

How I feel now: :angry:

Adrian · 2002-09-22 04:21:35

As I have posted in Meta New Mars, I'm not happy about this either and I've asked him to change his ways. Fast. It's amusing to see how all of his longer posts have already been quite well rebutted in sci.space.policy (which is where he posted them in the first place) and mysteriously, he never responded to the rebuttals. I wonder why.

Anyway, it's good that we have Google Groups these days so I can check up on these sorts of things. Gone is the time when people could repost stuff willynilly.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-22 05:50:19

'Cause I didn't have the time! Duh!

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-22 05:54:02

Yeah, his logic with regard to the treaty is and was just stupid. I believe he is trolling. And I would bet that a lot of his really lengthy posts were actually taken from somewhere else, and not written by himself when he posted them.
At least I got a few posts out of arguing with him, while alleviating my boredom on a weekend afternoon.
I sent a post to Adrian about him, as I didn't want to clutter the board with bitching, but you summed him up pretty well. Thanks.
How I feel now: :angry:

O h yeah...I forgot you were all children on this board. Well, if I'm not going to get any real debate with grown ups I WILL go. Thanks for the entertaining brain-jostling Josh, I'm sure you are a nice guy if you weren't such a technophile (you Adrian, a just a Geekie-DickTator, I'm glad I'll never meet you!)

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-23 12:33:09

I wish you were more civil. There was a lot of potential for very long and enlightening discussions (where are the Reds?). But oh well. You live in learn.

For the record, I am hardly a technophile. There are many obvious arguments, but a good one would be that a technophile wouldn't want to terraform.

Palomar · 2002-09-23 15:37:00

In general, I'm not a fan of his thought, but Nietzsche has his type pegged. He's a devotee of slave morality. His reaction is against success. This is, by the way, why he hates the United States. Success, he feels, is evil, and therefore the most successful country in history must be especially evil. Going to Mars inspires revulsion because it's a sign of success, since only a wealthy and advanced civilization can do it and only a vigorous civilization can summon up the will to such a great deed, a success in itself, since it's an engineering marvel, and, worst of all, a source of future success. Achievement, success, immortal glory, striving toward a noble goal: bad! His comments show signs of his being what called a "transnational progressive", and the tranzis are, fundamentally, opposed to life. At every turn, they choose contraction over expansion (why, expansion would be imperialism), the primitive over the technological, poverty over wealth. They are, as Nietzche wrongly described Christianity, " life's nausea and disgust with life."

*I agree, A.J.

Jealousy really screws some people up: Jealousy of success, strength, resourcefulness, productivity, etc. -- WHEREVER it is to be found.

"A row of zeros still adds up to NOTHING." That seems to peg NovaMarsolli'as mentality rather well, as s/he'd apparently like the entire world to be a place of mediocrity and stagnation.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-09-23 15:41:18

There are many obvious arguments, but a good one would be that a technophile wouldn't want to terraform.

::blink::

Erm, how are you defining the term "technophile," Josh?

Also, why do you say a technophile wouldn't want to terraform?

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-23 20:10:47

Erm, how are you defining the term "technophile," Josh?

Someone who is obsessed with the usage and propagation of high level technologies. Does that make sense?

I think the world technophile is a bit vague. I mean, anyone who uses any technology is arguably a ?technophile.? So merely using something we've come to take for granted, like electricity, constitutes being a technophile.

It's just odd. If anything, I'm a Mars enthusiast. A Mars-phile. Is that necessarily evil? Probably to people like Nova.

Also, why do you say a technophile wouldn't want to terraform?

Because terraforming necessarily involves leaving the ecosystem alone. The word technophile, by the usage invoked by Nova, means someone who is ?technologically intrusive.? To him, people who go to Mars are ?technologically intrusive,? even though technology is inherently necessary for surviving on Mars, and can't be avoided.

But if we terraform, technology would not be necessary to survive after that point. What would happen, is we would have a point where the ecosystem was at equilibrium, and technology could be done with.

You could argue that this new ecosystem is in itself an invocation of technology, but I don't think that's really relevant, since it still leaves us with the opportunity to ignore and dispose of high level technology all-together.

So, my focus isn't technology, my focus is Mars. Technology is a by-product, and can't be avoided until we terraform.

clark · 2002-09-24 09:01:13

Technology will lead us to its own undoing....

there is a morality tale in there somewhere.... Where's Ted Kazinski....

definition of technophile
technophile: One who has a love of or enthusiasm for technology, especially computers and
high technology:

which made me wonder about
philistine:One who lacks knowledge in a specific area.

So, I think I would like to coin a new word "techno-philistine"

techno-philistine: Someone who has a love of or enthusiasm for technology, but hasn't got a clue on how it works.

Sounds like most people i know.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-13 22:50:23

I know this is slightly off topic, but tonights latest Firefly prompted me to find this post and just muse a bit. Firefly is basically a science fiction western, which many of the libertarian people here might think is cool. I love it, and I really don't have much criticism towards it because it's rather realistic, although I would hope that a futuristic society isn't as militant as the civilizations portrayed in it are.

But one thing that interests me the most, is that humankind (on this show) has gone throughout the galaxy terraforming planets. This leads to literal western-like colonization; where people live in run down towns, ride horses, etc. My only other gripe about this is that technology could poliferate just as easily as terraformation- and they don't explain away the horrible conditions by suggesting that these western-like colonizers reject technology.

The point is, though, that yeah, a terraformed planet doesn't require much technology, and that even a good TV show can sort of reflect that accurately

To Firefly, probably the most realistic scifi show on TV.

I just wanted to muse a bit more. I think that humankind, could use technology as a sort of seed for the galaxy. Think about it this way. We go from solar system to solar system, terraforming, and colonizing; after we've terraformed, we throw away any attachment to [at least high level] technology, and let evolution take its course.

It would be much like a seed, because after a seed is planted, and germinates, it is no longer needed. The metaphor works perfectly.

Deimos · 2002-12-29 12:24:18

I completely agree with what you've said.. This whole thing about Mars and other celestial bodies being owned by everyone is a bunch of B.S. In my opinion, Mars is owned by whoever gets there first and stays there. Others have compared this to 1500's exploration and that relates to my point...

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-29 17:23:01

I completely agree with what you've said.. This whole thing about Mars and other celestial bodies being owned by everyone is a bunch of B.S. In my opinion, Mars is owned by whoever gets there first and stays there. Others have compared this to 1500's exploration and that relates to my point...

Yes, but we don't live in the 1500's.
Now, if America goes and lands on Mars first and claims it pretty much for its own, quite alot of countries that have the misfortune to be small or not as rich as America will be quite angry. Most of that anger will probably just be jelousy though, but we can't be selfish about it and say this planet is ours and ours only.
In India and places like that, when we start settling on Mars, will be more way over-crowded than they are now while we all have a nice, new, empty planet all to ourselves. That will provoke alot of violence towards the western countries with settlers.
But maybe its their own fault for not becoming 'civilized' at the same time the western cultures did.

Anyway, they will be so over crowded that migrating people over to Mars won't make a noticable difference. So maybe we should just claim Mars for ourselves to save the planet from being over-run by poor-people who will probably do the same as they did on Earth and over-populate Mars.

soph · 2002-12-29 17:52:43

nature has always favored those with the means to survive and acquire. i dont think mars should be used as a utility to be sold, but i think that those who are enterprising enough to get there first should be the ones to get the best estate. if europe gets there first, so be it.

im not saying this as an american, im saying it as a living being. the ISS is a perfect example of what happens when you try to help the less forunate countries-we're stuck with almost complete cost for an internationally shared benefit. it probably hurt our chances of space development more than it helped--that money has to be recovered over time.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-29 20:11:36

Mars is actually so big, it would be nearly impossible for a group of people to stake a claim on the whole of it, and keep that claim legitimate through whatever enforcement. And even then, outside forces could change Mars in any various ways.

Sort of brings about a dilemma I talked about before. If Reds took over Mars, and had a culture that disliked terraformation, so that terraformation couldn't occur, it wouldn't take many outside sources to terraform the planet anyway.

Mars doesn't belong to ?whoever gets their first.? It belongs to whoever can maintain their claims. If getting there first is enough, then so be it, but I doubt that it would be.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-09-21 22:48:59

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#2 2002-09-21 23:08:14

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#3 2002-09-22 04:21:35

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#4 2002-09-22 05:50:19

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#5 2002-09-22 05:54:02

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#6 2002-09-23 12:33:09

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#7 2002-09-23 15:37:00

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#8 2002-09-23 15:41:18

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#9 2002-09-23 20:10:47

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#10 2002-09-24 09:01:13

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#11 2002-12-13 22:50:23

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#12 2002-12-29 12:24:18

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#13 2002-12-29 17:23:01

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#14 2002-12-29 17:52:43

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

#15 2002-12-29 20:11:36

Re: A Few Insulting Remarks About NovaMarsollia - The latest fruitcake around here

Board footer