Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

clark · 2005-01-26 08:04:44

So I have a question, and perhaps you all can explain the answer to me...

Is it appropriate to raise children on Mars?

High levels of radiation, closed environments, delicate machinery, hostile outside environment, and possibly the exsclusion of ever going to Earth. Is that a fair situation in which to raise children?

Beatings aside, I realize children will make do, but then, I am under the impression that most people want more opportunities for their children than they have. There will be fewer educational opportunities, fewer opportunities to try a number of different occupations, fewer opportunites to experience the variety of life.

No fields to run in, no oceans to swim in, no skies to fly kites in, no clouds to imagine into, well, anything. No seasons to speak of, no rain or thunder on long lonely nights.

Sure, there will be other things to do, sure there will be some things- but no where near as many as here on Earth.

The main reason I ask is because the answers decide all following questions about life on Mars- about the future of Mars. You have kids, the place will be radically different in its conclusion. Terraforming isn't a question anymore, just a neccessity of the first question (kids).

Take a step back and think about it, would it be right to start a colony and raise kids on Three Mile Island? Or near the site of Chernobyl? How is it any different?

Mundaka · 2005-01-26 13:13:33

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-26 13:24:25

Is it appropriate to raise children on Mars?

Yes. It is worthwhile to expand our civilization to other worlds and that entails having children on thosw worlds. It would be inapproriate to maintain otherwise, no children then no settlements. If that's never going to happen, then we have need of sending people into space at all, nor to explore even with probes.

Children on Mars is a necessary step for the growth of our species.

Sure, they may not like the conditions and they won't have all the opportunities as some others but that in no way constitutes an argument against it. To argue as much is essentially no different than to say that poor people shouldn't have children, or minorities, or ugly people or anyone else who's children might have fewer options and opportunities than others.

Children on Mars are a natural result of living on Mars, not a factor in determining whether or not to based on arbitrary measures.

Mundaka · 2005-01-26 14:42:15

BWhite · 2005-01-26 15:45:02

What was done to Ms. Serafin under the color of Texas law
Bill, you went to law school right? What does the phrase "color of law" mean, as opposed to just, "law"? I hear it used all the time, primarily in libertarian circles, and typically the speaker is implying that "color of law" is not a legitamate process, only law is, so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution (at least that's how I interpret them.) :hm:

Under color of law. . .

My loose understanding is that this refers to a distinction between a wrongful action done by a criminal (for example) and the same wrongful action done supposedly in the name of the State or the law.

One possible example on the moral issues that can arise:

Let us assume a rape occurs. Typical nasty scumbug drags a woman into an alley. The criminal perpetrator deserves the punishment set forth in the law.

Second case. Police officer stops a woman for speeding. Decides to rape her.

Related, a criminal uses a fake police light to pull women over.

If I were the judge, I believe the second & third cases deserves a more serious punishment than the first. Because there are TWO crimes. The rape and the false use of official power to commit the crime.

Undre color of law can mean that someone does something asserting that the law permits, condones or directs the action. To persuade a woman driver to stop her car in a deserted region using a police light use "color of law" to effecuate the stop, a necessary step to the subsequent criminal conduct.

= = =

The "color of law" issues concernkng Gitmo and Abu Ghraib involve the assertion that the extreme conduct is legal. To beat someone is battery and is criminal. To beat someone and assert it was done consistent with law (under color of law) is really two crimes, the battery and the false use of legality.

One of the purposes of the Gonzalez legal memos on torture is to give the officers at Gitmo a "colorable" defense - - perhaps a future judge will rule the conduct was torture but with the memos the officers can say, I was just following the opinion of the future Attorney General of the United States, don't blame me.

= = =

"Color of law" issues happen to be a large part of what enrages me about the Bush administration - - behind the scenes, long standing doctrines on torture, privacy, search and seizure and so on are being re-written without disclosure or public debate and then asserted as law.

= = =

As for spanking, to assert a Biblical basis to beat your children seeks to clothe conduct under a Biblical basis "under the color" of moral law.

Scott G. Beach · 2005-01-26 20:04:18

In a previous message I asserted that if corporal punishment is allowed it will be carried to extremes that result in the maiming and killing of children. Unfortunately, I have found additional evidence to support that assertion.

The following paragraphs are excerpted from Mr. Doyle Weaver's letter of 5-28-03 to the Texas Senate Jurisprudence Committee.
__

Another child in Texas has died from corporal punishment. It was used by her grandmother while the mother was serving in the Armed Forces in Iraq. It happened on May 13, 2003.

The little girl was four years old and her name was Destiny. The grandmother thought the little girl was slack in her homework so she decided to do what Texas law allowed her to do - give the child an old fashioned whipping.

That is exactly what she did, using a belt and an extension cord. Texas law leaves the choice of weapons to whip with entirely up to the person doing the whipping. Little Destiny died that same day at Metroplex Hospital in Killeen, Texas. Her life on earth is over.

We cannot begin to imagine the great fear and indescribable pain that Little Destiny experienced as the horrors of death engulfed her precious little body. She didn't take up much room in this big state but, nevertheless, that space is now empty.

Destiny will never again be tucked into bed by her mother and hear those wonderful words, "I love you sweet baby."

C M Edwards · 2005-01-27 06:41:12

Scott, you keep presenting examples of children beaten by authority figures, but are they relevant to the issue of corporal punishment as a discipline method? True, "I was trying to discipline" the child was used as an excuse in each case, but in each case the actions of the person doing the beating clearly escalated beyond that.

Do you mean to imply that because the states of Texas and Illinois allow corporal punishment that this somehow constitutes a legal defense for these actions? Even Texas has laws prohibiting child abuse, assault, and manslaughter - yes, even Texas - and last I checked, these states recognized no sufficient justification for committing these crimes with intent.

You seem to be arguing that corporal punishment is a slippery slope.

Crime is inevitable, Scott. Incidents like this happen where corporal punishment is not public policy just like they happen where it is.

Scott G. Beach · 2005-01-27 10:39:21

Mr. Edwards:

You asked whether "examples of children beaten by authority figures...are relevant to the issue of corporal punishment as a discipline method?" Yes, such examples are relevant. Imagine that you are a member of a state's legislature. If you were asked to approve a law that allows "authority figures" to beat children then you would want to know how often such beatings escalate into severe bodily injury and possibly death.

You asked, "Do you mean to imply that because the states of Texas and Illinois allow corporal punishment that this somehow constitutes a legal defense for these actions?" No, I do not intend to imply that.

You wrote, "Incidents like this happen where corporal punishment is not public policy just like they happen where it is." Yes, but such incidents are more likely to occur where corporal punishment is permitted by law.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-27 12:09:05

I propose that the Martian Constitution ban the practice of eating. While some sustenance is necessary it can clearly be delivered in a manner that will not result in the choking death of those practicing such a primitive, barabaric activity.

While such deaths are highly unusual, the mere fact that the practice in question has on some occasions led to it indicates clearly that it must not be permitted. Nutrients must therefore be delivered directly to the bloodstream in liquid form, for the safety of everyone.

clark · 2005-01-27 14:06:46

Thanks Mundaka (welcome back),

Before I start, let me explain my basic premise here- colonization of Mars is an end goal, which requires children. That whole spread of civilization in a nutshell. I'm picking up this rock and looking underneath...

The fact that we seem to be moving toward a global society, combined with a gradual dissolution of borders -- think of the E.U. -- leaves suspect classes with a problem: no place to run. For that reason alone I think an outward migration is a worthy goal, even if the kids have to endure a pioneer upbringing.

Granted, frontier analogy as a conduit for repressed people to escape persecution. Well worn history, easily understood and then extrapolated to Mars, right?

With this in mind though, we assume that Mars can be a conduit for repressed peoples. Can it? Look at the logistical hurdles involved (which are nothing compared to any historical experience) in order to "escape" to Mars. We here rack our brains and come up with billion dollar price tags to get a handful of people to Mars for a short jaunt.

How do persecuted people escape to orbit, then to Mars, and aquire the huge amount of resources to achieve this? I like this fantasy, but it is just a fantasy. In an instance like this, wouldn't it be easier to flee to Antartica, or some sinking island in the South Pacific?

Radiation: I live above 3000 feet, Denver is a mile high and flagstaff is over 6000 feet. Cindy lives at about 4000 feet and an hours drive from Cloudcroft, a town where kids grow up above 9000 feet, and La Paz, Bolivia is a fairly large Capitol City that is very high (I think over 13,000 feet.) There must be an increase in radiation exposure at higher altitudes, and I think its fairly significant.

Even at 13,000 feet, there is the magnetosphere and enough atmosphere to block out most of the harful radiation. Mars has neither atmosphere (compared to the highest point on Earth) nor a magentosphere. Not to mention the issues with gravity which can have long term consquences on life and health.

Perhaps I didn't really explain well enough, but my example of living in the sites of nuclear reactors was to compare the idea of some group who declares their intent to go raise children on the site (after the accident). Would you consider it wise, or fair to their children?

Not a bad thing in my view, at least with regard for education. Read DeToqueville's (sp?) description of American children before the advent of modern schooling and you will not even recognize the species (Think of Ben Franklin, Jefferson, Marshall, and my favorite, Admiral Braddock, combat veteran, Captain of his own warship in the US Navy, which he sailed around the horn and up to Boston, all before the age of 12. At 16 he commanded a fleet in the Med, and kicked the snot out of the Barbary Pirates.)

Granted, however, we live in an age of growing technological and scientific sophistication- Mars will be more so. Advanced training is neccessary if you want that nifty eco-system to work properly, no? Advanced training is neccessary to make improvements on state-of-the-art technology that your life depends on (not to mention repairing it).

I must also disagree about fewer opportunities for careers: the biggest shortage on Mars will be people, not opportunity -- well, maybe air, but you get the point. Vacations might be in short supply, but after a trip to a new planet, the idea of travel might well be like giving an airline pilot a million frequent flyer miles for Christmas.

Shift your perspective- you see Mars through your own eyes, you would choose yourself to go there, to live there. Yet that very same perspective may not be shared by any children born there, they may feel condemned to live there (it wouldn't be a "new" planet to them).

Let me try an analogy- how many of you still live in the same town your parents lived in all their lives? Most individuals look to escape these places, to go see what's beyond the next hill. Mars, it's just the habitat. Now put that into stark contrast with an entire world, Earth, filled with a multitude of people and experiences, just waiting for you to explore.

Dosen't any of that strike you as unfair to would be martian children?

All true, but I'm sure the first humans who left the oldavi gorge and faced the European glaciers sorely missed the soft, tropical winter nights on the African savanna, and the summer lighting of the monsoons.

Yet even then they had seasons. They had rain, wind, sun, grass, wild flowers, rivers... Mars is absence. It is living in the ansence of our senses- of sensory input that we have evolved with for millions of years.

Kids who grow up on Mars may not have a choice of planet, but then again, can you name a human who has? They will have the freedom to make virtually every other choice in their world, and that's worth risking -- and sacrificing -- almost anything for.

Will they? Will they have the choice to return to Earth after 20 years of living in 1/3rd gravity? Isn't starting a civilization there condemning them to remain there?

Cobra,

Yes. It is worthwhile to expand our civilization to other worlds and that entails having children on thosw worlds.

Okay, let me accept the premise that it is worthwhile to expand our civilization to other worlds, how does expanding our civilization to Mars require us raising children there?

We mentioned Mars as a conduit for persecuted people- so what if all the homo-sexuals on Earth were shipped off to the Red...er, Pink Planet. It wouldn't be a civilization? We seem to keep coming up with more homosexuals each generation, so couldn't we simply keep shipping them there? That would replenish the population, no?

So I make a joke, but I think you get my point- or put another way, would the civilization be any less valid on Mars if only orphans of 12-15 were shipped to Mars? Mars, the planet of the adopted. Africa has millions of them.

It seems that the only reason we would need to raise children on Mars is if there were no way to replenish the population, but that isn't neccessarily true.

Just something to consider.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-27 14:42:13

So I make a joke, but I think you get my point- or put another way, would the civilization be any less valid on Mars if only orphans of 12-15 were shipped to Mars? Mars, the planet of the adopted. Africa has millions of them.

It wouldn't be a civilization at all, not even in the limited sense that a self-sufficient, independent Mars colony would be a civilization. If it could add to its population only through a steady influx of cast-offs from Earth it would be totally dependent just as much as if they didn't grow their own food or produce their own air.

But setting all else aside, if children born on Mars will suffer all the health effects and lack of opportunity you fear isn't it just as if not more "cruel" to select those who are born on Earth and send them? If it's really so bad wouldn't what you describe be akin to taking 12-15 year American orphans and shipping them to central Africa, or Antarctica, or even Chernobyl?

Unborn children don't get a vote, never have. But to cite unfairness to them then use it to justify turning their problems onto those already living is a bit off.

I understand that you're using the example to illustrate a point, but what it says to me is that if we can't have children on Mars or elsewhere then we have no real future in space. Mining bases, research stations and military facilities, nothing more. No colonies, no expanding civilization, no terraforming (there would be little point, some conditions can't be changed). One planet and little jars of life scattered across a tiny sliver of space.

But I don't believe it's the case, any problems we encounter can most likely be overcome.

Grypd · 2005-01-27 17:41:42

Radiation: I live above 3000 feet, Denver is a mile high and flagstaff is over 6000 feet. Cindy lives at about 4000 feet and an hours drive from Cloudcroft, a town where kids grow up above 9000 feet, and La Paz, Bolivia is a fairly large Capitol City that is very high (I think over 13,000 feet.) There must be an increase in radiation exposure at higher altitudes, and I think its fairly significant.
Even at 13,000 feet, there is the magnetosphere and enough atmosphere to block out most of the harful radiation. Mars has neither atmosphere (compared to the highest point on Earth) nor a magentosphere. Not to mention the issues with gravity which can have long term consquences on life and health.
Perhaps I didn't really explain well enough, but my example of living in the sites of nuclear reactors was to compare the idea of some group who declares their intent to go raise children on the site (after the accident). Would you consider it wise, or fair to their children?

Is it really that different from people who live in naturally high background radiation areas. This is areas where certain types of coal and of course the rock type granite is predominant.

Of course this is hardly anything compared to the radiation count over the long term that the first colonists will get

Scott G. Beach · 2005-01-27 18:27:18

To Mr. Gregory Richardson and the Other Members of the School Board of the School of Excellence in Education:

Ms. Sonja Garza of the San Antonio Express-News has reported that on June 18, 2004, Brett Wilkinson, an employee of the School of Excellence in Education, used a four-foot-long spanking paddle to beat a woman named Jessica Serafin. I believe that beating anyone with a 48-inch-long paddle constitutes a violation of the constitutional prohibition against "cruel" punishment. That paddle is a weapon of viciousness and it should be destroyed.

The Tyler Independent School District has adopted a Student Code of Conduct (http://www.tylerisd.org/Forms/Student%2 … onduct.pdf). The code provides that, "Corporal punishment shall be administered using an instrument (paddle) made of wood or plastic of reasonable width, length, and thickness. (The paddle will not be more than 1/4” x 3” x 18”.)"

I am opposed to corporal punishment but I will agree that a "reasonable" size for a spanking paddle is 1/4" thick, 3" wide, and 18" long. Please consider adopting a rule that limits the size of spanking paddles to this "reasonable" size.

Sincerely, Scott G. Beach

Scott G. Beach · 2005-01-27 22:52:29

Dear Ms. Reed:

I read the biography that you posted on the Bexar County District Attorney's web site. Your biography states that you are "a member of the National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women." As a member of that Council, and as the Bexar County District Attorney, you should be especially concerned about violent assaults that are committed against women in Bexar County.

I am writing to you to bring to your attention the fact that a woman named Jessica Serafin was viciously beaten UNDER COLOR OF LAW in Bexar County on June 18, 2004. Reports about the assault on Ms. Serafin have been written by Sonja Garza and published in the San Antonio Express-News. See http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/ … ....6.html. Additional information about the attack on Ms. Serafin is contained in documents that have been filed with the Bexar County District Court. See Cause Number 005CI00373 (JESSICA SERAFIN vs BRETT WILKINSON ET AL).

I have appended copies of my recent e-mail messages to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and to San Antonio Chief of Police Albert Ortiz. In those messages I asked them to remove from the premises of the School of Excellence in Education the 48-inch-long spanking paddle that was used to beat Jessica Serafin. I have also attached a copy of my message to the School Board, requesting that they consider adopting a rule that limits the size of spanking paddles to a "reasonable" size.

Ms. Serafin is no longer a student at the School of Excellence in Education so she is no longer subject to being beaten bloody with that 48-inch-long paddle. However, other students, whether they are children or legal ADULTS, are in danger of being beaten bloody with that vicious device. I am therefore requesting (1) that you initiate a criminal investigation into the battery of Jessica Serafin and (2) that you go to the School of Excellence in Education and place that vicious device into a sterile plastic bag and label the bag as containing an item of evidence in a criminal investigation and (3) that you then REMOVE that evidence from the school.

Please do not allow that weapon to be used to beat anyone else.

Sincerely, Scott G. Beach

JammerG55 · 2005-01-29 14:53:00

Ok ladies and gentlemen,
This forum has been very enlightening.

I myself believe that you have to treat each case differently because no two children are the same.
those children and adults, for that matter, that are suffering from so called add/adhd are really suffering from a nural visual supression. they dont need drugs what they is what is called a chromatic refraction which is a colored lense that filters out specific wavelengths of light and correct the problem they also signifantly reduce the amount sesures, and migranes and there a possible 40 million different perscriptions that are possible. And they take care a lot of nurological problems like dyslexia and such.
So please dont medicate the children because it will litterally ruin there lives.

Scott G. Beach · 2005-01-29 17:11:59

To Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services

Dear Secretary Leavitt:

In more than twenty of the fifty States, girls and women are being sexually assaulted in accordance with local and state laws. From kindergarten through high school, girls and women (some of them legal adults) are being beaten on their buttocks and thighs with wooden boards. This practice is called "corporal punishment" and it is sometimes referred to as "paddling." This practice should be seen for what we now know it to be: vicious sexual assault.

We know more about human physiology than we used to know. We now know that some of the nerves in a female's buttocks and thighs are connected to her clitoris. We now know that these nerves can carry copulatory impulses to her clitoris and that such impulses provide some of the stimulation that triggers an orgasm. We now know that during an orgasm rhythmic contractions of her vagina pump semen into her uterus, which increases the probability of conception and eventually the birth of children. We now know that beating a female's buttocks or thighs can cause her to associate violent physical assault with sexual stimulation. And we now know that these associations can become wired into a girl's still-developing brain and that these associations can manifest themselves as psychosexual pathologies.

A female's buttocks and thighs are sexual organs. Anyone who batters those organs is committing a crime against nature and should be condemned for doing so. The practice of paddling schoolgirls is uncivilized and outright barbaric. This practice should be stopped NOW!

You are the co-chair of the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women. I hereby request that you ask the Committee to draft federal statutes and regulations that will bring an end to the vicious and unconscionable practice of beating schoolgirls on their buttocks and thighs.

Sincerely, Scott G. Beach

Leifur · 2005-01-30 07:03:04

I beliewe in individual freedom, and the rule that your rights end where the nose (or the buttocs) of another begins, that is you do not have right to harm another individual. But I am also rather conservative when it comes to family, and I beliewe in parents rights to discipline their children, and if they do so also, can they not extend that right to someone else? If a parent can spank their children, could they not give their teachers permission to spank them if neccaserily? Or does the child have right not to be spanked?

I am not sure, but one solution could be to to have competing laws, where parents, or even childs that do not accept corporal punishment could choose protection agencys (private police) that follows a set of laws and goes to arbitration firms and private judges that do not accept corporal punishment. And those that due beliewe in it can go to similar agencys wich allow it. I am not sure how the solution will be if the child goes to an agency that forbids it, but the parents to an agency that allows it, the childs protection agensy must surely have to protect it from violence, even spanking. It depends probably on if the child can pay for his own protection or if the parents pay for their child´s protection under law.

I have finally finished reading David D. Friedmans book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812690699/]The Machinery of Freedom, a Guide to radical Capitalism and I am even more convinced that when the human kind will finally be able to construct a completely new society on another planet, it will have to be based upon that kind of Anarcho-Capitalistic principles argued for in that book. People will be coming from many different kinds of cultures and legal traditions, and the only way to prevent cultural clashes is to have complete freedom, without a majority rule over the minorities.

BWhite · 2005-01-30 22:41:58

clark's question deserves a thread of its own, for it is an excellent question.

Should humanity become spacefaring, using my working definition that "spacefaring" is defined as a species being able to safely and routinely bear children at multiple celestial locations.

(If ever asked to write a dictionary definition of spacefaring, I would probably focus on the ability of a woman to bear children (safely and routinely) on a celestial location other than the planet of her own birth. Okay, its mammal-centric, but its only a draft!)

= = =

Frankly, I could fashion a colorable argument either way. Raising children on Mars would be a nightmare.

That said, I am firmly convinced that Mars easily is the second safest place to raise children, after the Earth. How distant a second? Good question, but far, far ahead of any possible third choice.

= = =

On January 1, 2004, William Langeweische wrote a column for Atlantic Monthly. He grasped this exact point perfectly, IMHO.

Every honest and legitimate debate we have about space policy will eventually come back to this question:

Should humanity become a two planet species?

In the long run, that answer affects EVERYTHING ELSE we choose to do in space.

= = =

And yes, I agree that raising children on Mars might constitute child abuse. But it might also be a better life than what is suffered by children in Rio de Janiero, today.

I also believe families on Mars will be very close and parents and children will spend far more time together than is common in 21st century America.

= = =

But, clark, who in the end gets to decide - - can the majority deny a minority the right to go to Mars and attempt to raise children?

Edited By BWhite on 1107146577

clark · 2005-01-31 08:05:17

It wouldn't be a civilization at all, not even in the limited sense that a self-sufficient, independent Mars colony would be a civilization. If it could add to its population only through a steady influx of cast-offs from Earth it would be totally dependent just as much as if they didn't grow their own food or produce their own air.

Well now we can quibble over the definition of "civilization". It seems that self-sufficiency is a prerequisite, at least how you portray it. If that is the case, one, America wouldn't be a civilization any more than ancient Rome was. We depend on resources (like the rest of the world) from other areas for self-sufficiency. Oil for starters. Two, even if people had kids on Mars, there wouldn't be a self-sufficient civilization for hundreds of years considering the need for high-technology that is necessary to make life possible on the red planet. Just think of what is required to produce a single micro-chip- the necessary infrastructure to build the factory that builds the parts for the factory that builds the parts for the other factory that finally builds the microchip won't be there for... well, a very long time.

But setting all else aside, if children born on Mars will suffer all the health effects and lack of opportunity you fear isn't it just as if not more "cruel" to select those who are born on Earth and send them? If it's really so bad wouldn't what you describe be akin to taking 12-15 year American orphans and shipping them to central Africa, or Antarctica, or even Chernobyl?

Well, it was a suggestion, but there was a reason behind what I suggested- puberty and growth, not to mention choice. Consider that after the age of 12-15, most children have gone through their major physical growth periods- they aren't developing like they did when they were kids. Furthermore, at 12-15, many many countries consider this age range to have the ability to make a greater range of informed choices. They can give their consent to live in the conditions they choose.

Now this has two parts; the people going to Mars would want to go, and live there, and if they change their minds, well, physical limitations might not be so grave as to allow these kids to return to Earth.

This all answers Bill question:

But, clark, who in the end gets to decide - - can the majority deny a minority the right to go to Mars and attempt to raise children?

Yes, in the same sense that the majority can decide the limits of the rights of individuals to punish their children in the way they see fit. Society has a responsibility to protect the rights of children, no? That is the basis for child welfare, is it not? Children are limited property of their parents, but the children posses’ rights by which society believes that parents will represent and protect. However, society has the right to supercede if it determines that the parent is not protecting the rights of the child appropriately.

Analogy- a woman gives birth while in jail, society does what? Takes the child out of the jail.

So why should Martian settlers be allowed to endanger the welfare of their children?

For a precious "self-sufficient" civilization?

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-31 08:50:04

Well now we can quibble over the definition of "civilization". It seems that self-sufficiency is a prerequiste, at least how you portray it. If that is the case, one, America wouldn't be a civilization any more than ancient Rome was.

Autarky is not a requirement for civilization, choosing to import goods or raw materials isn't the same as being entirely dependent on outside assistance for survival. If all technology simply ceased to function tomorrow morning the present "civilizations" would adapt, people would survive, life would go on.

Provided sufficient transport infrastructure was in place to ship enough cast-offs to Mars regularly the idea could be viable as an alternative to true colonization, but there are problems. Most notably, how do you prevent those colonists from one day having children of their own, thus bypassing the entire convoluted scheme to prevent just that?

Bill is quite right here, "should we become a two planet species" is the pivotal question in the matter. And if yes, how do you define it? Anything short of a colony is merely an outpost, and without on-site breeding you have no colony. Further, even if expressly forbidden there will eventually be Martian pregnancies. Do you only allow one gender to set foot on the planet? Do you sterilize everyone that goes, do you mandate abortions when it happens? Is it really safer to send a pregnant woman back to Earth, economic viablity aside?

The short of it is that if humans can't reproduce off this planet we can't become truly spacefaring, rather than a new frontier space becomes our prison bars, a cold reminder that this little sphere of dirt and water is all we'll ever have and we're stuck with each other. Any attempt to become "spacefaring" without breeding off-world is an illusion.

Grypd · 2005-01-31 09:00:40

It wouldn't be a civilization at all, not even in the limited sense that a self-sufficient, independent Mars colony would be a civilization. If it could add to its population only through a steady influx of cast-offs from Earth it would be totally dependent just as much as if they didn't grow their own food or produce their own air.
Well now we can quibble over the definition of "civilization". It seems that self-sufficiency is a prerequisite, at least how you portray it. If that is the case, one, America wouldn't be a civilization any more than ancient Rome was. We depend on resources (like the rest of the world) from other areas for self-sufficiency. Oil for starters. Two, even if people had kids on Mars, there wouldn't be a self-sufficient civilization for hundreds of years considering the need for high-technology that is necessary to make life possible on the red planet. Just think of what is required to produce a single micro-chip- the necessary infrastructure to build the factory that builds the parts for the factory that builds the parts for the other factory that finally builds the microchip won't be there for... well, a very long time.

But when Rome lost the capability to get certain key resources from its colonies it collapsed. In this the key was the silver mines in Spain which had been overworked and where unable to be developed further using the technology that the Romans had and so was unable to pay the large mercenary armies that gaurded its borders.

Analogy- a woman gives birth while in jail, society does what? Takes the child out of jail

Does it. It is always assumed that it is in the best interests of the child for it to stay with its mother. Each case is taken on its own merits. It means that prisons which hold female prisoners have wings where women with children will stay though secure they are less severe almost nurseries. It though is standard practice to have the Children go to close relatives or into care at the age of three.

But will it be like a prison on Mars. Not really the Children will believe and be right that they are participating in Mans greatest adventure. We will have to take precautions to ensure that those children that are too young to understand the dangers be kept safe in well designed areas. Do we really want to send men and women to Mar and beyond and tell them you will be here for Years dont take your families.

We will have to expect that children will be born unless we send only single sex crews or take really drastic measures to ensure it does not. We will not get the people we will need to send if we try that though. Only the people who want us to remain permanently on the Earth and not to spoil the pristine(as they call it) heavens truly dont want to have mankind go to Mars.

clark · 2005-01-31 09:09:08

Autarky is not a requirement for civilization, choosing to import goods or raw materials isn't the same as being entirely dependent on outside assistance for survival. If all technology simply ceased to function tomorrow morning the present "civilizations" would adapt, people would survive, life would go on.

If all technology stopped, on Earth, Mars would be dead. Self suffiency on Mars requires stability on Earth, at least for several hundred years.

Most notably, how do you prevent those colonists from one day having children of their own, thus bypassing the entire convoluted scheme to prevent just that?

Choice my dear friend. Responsibility with choice! You want to live on Mars, fine, that's your mad choice. More power to you, and all like you! But choice comes with consquence. Sterilize 'em. How bad do you want Mars? Everyone has a price they are willing to pay- maybe this is to high for you, but some might pay it.

Bill is quite right here, "should we become a two planet species" is the pivotal question in the matter.

With all due respect, this is not the pivotal question. It's a specific question to shape all forecoming arguments to justify and rationalize a particular desire, namely, colonizing ONE planet in all the heavens.

My argument falls apart, largely, with an O'Neil model of space expansion. The problem here though is that you want to have babies on a world that wan't designed for humanity, and where humanity has limited options in making it hospitable to human life.

We are a space faring civilization if we live in giant space stations that travel the stars, no? We can build in the neccessary life support to diminish any health affects. Not so on Mars (you will always have the issue of gravity).

The short of it is that if humans can't reproduce off this planet we can't become truly spacefaring, rather than a new frontier space becomes our prison bars, a cold reminder that this little sphere of dirt and water is all we'll ever have and we're stuck with each other. Any attempt to become "spacefaring" without breeding off-world is an illusion.

No escape, eh? :laugh: Guess we better learn to get along then, cause we are all in this together. Wonder what that would do to our meme's...

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-31 09:32:12

If all technology stopped, on Earth, Mars would be dead. Self suffiency on Mars requires stability on Earth, at least for several hundred years.

And yet, even if Mars were advanced and hospitable enough to provide for all the necessities of life, under your proposal it would still only endure for a generation at best. That's the point, no matter how far Mars is developed, without a breeding population it's just an exercise. Go live on Mars, build some stuff, look around, for what?

Choice my dear friend. Responsibility with choice! You want to live on Mars, fine, that's your mad choice. More power to you, and all like you! But choice comes with consquence.

File that away for later use.

Should a group of colonists believe they can have children and proceed to do so, what then? Artificially fertilized embryos spinning away in artificial wombs beneath the sands and a big digicus imputicus to the suits on Earth who think they know best.

With all due respect, this is not the pivotal question. It's a specific question to shape all forecoming arguments to justify and rationalize a particular desire, namely, colonizing ONE planet in all the heavens.

Mars is the target because it's the most attainable. We're more likely to be able to live on Mars than Venus, or Titan, or even Luna. If we can't make it on Mars, we can't make it anywhere.

We are a space faring civilization if we live in giant space stations that travel the stars, no? We can build in the neccessary life support to diminish any health affects. Not so on Mars (you will always have the issue of gravity).

Are we? Tooling around in giant cans, worlds we find being nothing more than raw materials to make more cans? One world and a thousand jars with no prospect of ever being more. A race of pasty-skinned miners.

It seems to me that we're better served as a species making every effort to live on other worlds than to be content living in cans with sky-colored ceilings. Why strive for the bleaker future in the name of safety when many will suffer and die regardless?

Scott G. Beach · 2005-01-31 09:40:33

To Alma A. Allen, Representative, Texas House of Representatives

Dear Representative Allen:

Please introduce into the Texas Legislature a bill that prohibits sexual assaults in the name of "discipline." That bill might read as follows:

"A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CRIMES AGAINST NATURE

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Corporal punishment shall not be administered to a child's breasts, vulva, buttocks, or thighs."

Thank you for considering my request.

Sincerely, Scott G. Beach

clark · 2005-01-31 09:49:06

LOL!

And yet, even if Mars were advanced and hospitable enough to provide for all the necessities of life, under your proposal it would still only endure for a generation at best. That's the point, no matter how far Mars is developed, without a breeding population it's just an exercise. Go live on Mars, build some stuff, look around, for what?

Hmm, do you raise your family in the house while it is being built? There is a right of passage many families go through when they are blessed with a child- preparing the nursery. Going off to colonize Mars, having babies right away to build your glorious civilization is a one way ticket. Those kids are pretty much stuck there. If we waited till the health issues were resolved adquetly, then my suggestion has little merit.

Besides, most here seem to indicate that they would be satisfed with just building stuff and looking around. Not many clamour for the desire to go have their unborn children birthed upon martian soil...

Should a group of colonists believe they can have children and proceed to do so, what then? Artificially fertilized embryos spinning away in artificial wombs beneath the sands and a big digicus imputicus to the suits on Earth who think they know best.

Artifical wombs? Go ahead and try. Some people may steal, big finger to the man, so we shouldn't try to prevent stealing? You can do better Cobra.

In the end, we all are on the honor system. :laugh:

Mars is the target because it's the most attainable. We're more likely to be able to live on Mars than Venus, or Titan, or even Luna. If we can't make it on Mars, we can't make it anywhere.

Hey now, I simply don't agree. Mars is just one planet that looks attractive based on our current abilites. If we fail there, it just means we fail there. This would be like saying, "if we can't make it in Ranoke, we can't make it anywhere."

Are we? Tooling around in giant cans, worlds we find being nothing more than raw materials to make more cans? One world and a thousand jars with no prospect of ever being more. A race of pasty-skinned miners.

A thousand jars is more than what we have now. Maybe it isn't your ideal, but it achieves the very exact same thing that everyone claims to want as a rationale for Mars- an expansion of humanity off-planet, assurance from species destruction. That is one of the fundamental arguments of all space communities.

It seems to me that we're better served as a species making every effort to live on other worlds than to be content living in cans with sky-colored ceilings. Why strive for the bleaker future in the name of safety when many will suffer and die regardless?

Bleaker? That is a matter of opinion and perspective. Generation cities that can travel to other stars, or the red planet with sickly children. See, perspective. :;):

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-01-26 08:04:44

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#27 2005-01-26 13:13:33

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#28 2005-01-26 13:24:25

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#29 2005-01-26 14:42:15

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#30 2005-01-26 15:45:02

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#31 2005-01-26 20:04:18

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#32 2005-01-27 06:41:12

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#33 2005-01-27 10:39:21

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#34 2005-01-27 12:09:05

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#35 2005-01-27 14:06:46

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#36 2005-01-27 14:42:13

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#37 2005-01-27 17:41:42

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#38 2005-01-27 18:27:18

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#39 2005-01-27 22:52:29

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#40 2005-01-29 14:53:00

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#41 2005-01-29 17:11:59

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#42 2005-01-30 07:03:04

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#43 2005-01-30 22:41:58

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#44 2005-01-31 08:05:17

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#45 2005-01-31 08:50:04

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#46 2005-01-31 09:00:40

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#47 2005-01-31 09:09:08

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#48 2005-01-31 09:32:12

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#49 2005-01-31 09:40:33

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#50 2005-01-31 09:49:06

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

Board footer