The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

AltToWar · 2002-10-03 22:46:19

1: I don't see how the perception that the environmentalist movement is at odds with space exploration came about. I for one have seen several environmentalists argue for mars colonization.

2: I've not seen the environmentalist movement be in direct opposition to technology, only careless and distructive uses of technology. Sure better technology can make the toxins and pollution we spill out go away, but it's cheaper to forget about it. In a capitalist society like our there is no natual motivation for competing compasnies to put money into cleaner more environmentally friendy practices unless there is consumer demand for it.

3: Those that believed that man of pre-history were violent, savage beasts that worked their asses off just to survive need to take a step back and get some perspective.

At my last corporate job, I worked 60 Hrs a week. I live in new york city, and though I make more than both my parents combined, I still find it difficult at times to make ends meet. Modern man works hard. Americans in particular work more hours per week on average than any other nation in the world. Why is it that we believe ourselfs to be superior to modern man with all our technologies and luxuries, yet we work more hours in jobs that are (for most of us) meaningless then they had?

Pre-history hunter gatherer's population had until the agricultural revolution kept at a sustainable rate by the laws of nature. Because their numbers were low, the amount of work put into gathering food was quite a bit lower than I imagine most of you believe.

It was not until man took up the practice of massively manipulating nature into it's favor that mands population began increasing exponentially. At one point Man could never go back to hunter gathering as there were too many of them and too little natural foods. It is agriculture, and the support of a large social system to distribute goods and manage the population that is back-breaking work. Before agriculture, mans population was kept in check by nature. Before Agriculture there were never the mass famines that go on even today. Sense man has taken the turn that has lead us to our modern day cultures, man has had to break his back (or the backs of other men) to simply survive.

Since most "savages" kept no written records, it's impossible to tell what their inter-tribal conflicts were like. It can easily be accepted though that tribal man never sent millions of jews into gas chambers, never set off fusion bombs off over a few japaneese cities, never sent airplanes off into sky scrapers. So easy it is to call man of prehistory Savages, but if you look at modern man, were not exactly saints.

Palomar · 2002-10-04 10:17:40

*Not intending to be snide, but credit card and other debt come to mind. Many Americans (not all, of course) tend to live above their means. And, of course, one is hard-put to purchase a new car or mortgage a home, etc., unless one has an established credit history (or can pay for the vehicle or house with cash...and how many people have enough cash set aside to do that?). The old vicious cycle...

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-04 19:09:15

Talking about how hard we work these days in comparison to neolothic times, say.
I remember reading somewhere that they once did a kind of time and motion study of a 'primitive' culture to see how much work they actually did. It might have been a Kalahari tribe, I don't remember exactly.
Anyway, the point is they discovered they did an average of two hours work per day. That included all hunting, other food gathering, food preparation, tending to maintenance of hunting weapons, construction of shelters, etc. That's two hours per person per day, average.
The rest of the time was devoted to resting, story-telling, teaching and playing with children, dancing, singing, and artwork.

The contrast with today's protestant-work-ethic-driven western society, with its 60 hour working weeks and related stresses, is stark.
We've gained many things but it appears we've lost a few things too!!
???

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-04 19:50:56

Sorry for being so off-topic in that last post!
I was day dreaming, I guess.
???

Phobos · 2002-10-04 21:06:58

The contrast with today's protestant-work-ethic-driven western society, with its 60 hour working weeks and related stresses, is stark.
We've gained many things but it appears we've lost a few things too!!

I'm all for instituting a three day weekend or if that's not enough a two day work week would be just fine. So it'd take longer to build those buildings or fix roads or whatever, so what, I'd rather have the extra play time.

1: I don't see how the perception that the environmentalist movement is at odds with space exploration came about. I for one have seen several environmentalists argue for mars colonization.

Don't get the idea that we think all environmentalists are against the colonisation and utilization of space. If you go back and read some of the earlier messages you'll see we defended making alliances with certain environmentalist groups. But there are certainly radical environmentalist organizations out there who are wholeheartedly against the "exploitation" of resources in space. Friends of the Moon, ELF, Greypeace, and other groups. If you want to see how some of these people think just read what remains of NovaMarsollia's posts. They see humanity more as a disease that should be wiped out than something that should be allowed to spread beyond Earth's atmosphere. Such people tend to be very totalitarian in their political outlook and if given the chance would love to yank our chains in any direction they see fit in the name of "environmentalism."

Bill White · 2002-10-07 15:09:57

Anyway, the point is they discovered they did an average of two hours work per day. That included all hunting, other food gathering, food preparation, tending to maintenance of hunting weapons, construction of shelters, etc. That's two hours per person per day, average.
The rest of the time was devoted to resting, story-telling, teaching and playing with children, dancing, singing, and artwork.

Huh? Do you really believe this is true?

Although I did once read that in 12th century France people passed the time by picking lice out of each others hair. Maybe television is not all that bad, after all.

AltToWar · 2002-10-07 18:00:40

Anyway, the point is they discovered they did an average of two hours work per day. That included all hunting, other food gathering, food preparation, tending to maintenance of hunting weapons, construction of shelters, etc. That's two hours per person per day, average.
The rest of the time was devoted to resting, story-telling, teaching and playing with children, dancing, singing, and artwork.
Huh? Do you really believe this is true?
Although I did once read that in 12th century France people passed the time by picking lice out of each others hair. Maybe television is not all that bad, after all.

I believe it.

Look at gorillas in the wild. Hungy? Eat a bannana. Thirsty? trot over to the creek. Want some entertainment? throw shit at a monkey.

There is a HUGE difference between feeding a population that is in check with the amount of natual occuring food in an ecosystem, and changing the ecosystem to produce more food specificly for your species.

clark · 2002-10-08 10:25:49

So the secret is to do away with all the work, let most of this surplus population die, then the survivors (all 12 of em) can live off the naturaly occuring food and not have to work 40 hour weeks.

I don't buy it.

Phobos · 2002-10-08 21:41:20

So the secret is to do away with all the work, let most of this surplus population die, then the survivors (all 12 of em) can live off the naturaly occuring food and not have to work 40 hour weeks.
I don't buy it.

Or develop artificial intelligence to the point where it can do most of the human labor autonomously and then make people share holders in the state who recieve dividends from these largely robotic dependant corporations (I believe Alaska does something like this.) And yes, before you go calling me a hypocrite for suggesting such a socialistic thing, I still think people should have all the rights to start up their own businesses if they choose. Yeah, you scoff and laugh now but in 100 years, 200 years....

AltToWar · 2002-10-09 01:02:42

So the secret is to do away with all the work, let most of this surplus population die, then the survivors (all 12 of em) can live off the naturaly occuring food and not have to work 40 hour weeks.
I don't buy it.

there is no secret. the simple truth is, theres way WAY more people per acre then there are naturally occuring food sources. So no, we cannot go back to hunter-gathering unless a lot of people die.

before about 10k years ago, Mans population was on a very slow increase rate for about 1.5 million years (depending on when you decide man became man. Conservatively you could keep everyone happy by saying .5 million years ago. even 500,000 years it quite a larger scale of time than 10k.)

After the agricultural revolution, our population grew exponentially and has continued to do so sense.

there is no going back to hunter-gathering now. There is just too damn many of us.

now.. the real point here was that naturally (meaning for at least 98% of the time man has been on this earth) mankind has had to work about 2 hrs a day to survive.

Modern man has to work above and beyond that to pay our taxes, get our luxurys, pay for distrabution and marketing systems, pay for social welfare and war, etc. etc.

clark · 2002-10-09 12:14:18

Maybe I should clarify, I reject the notion that mankind got a long on 2 hours of work (on average) a day to survive.

Perhaps in lush environments where there is an abundance of food, mild weather, ample clean and running water, available timber and basic resources needed for construction, this might be true. However, the majority of the world, and the people found in that world, do not enjoy such conditions.

AltToWar · 2002-10-09 21:11:34

Maybe I should clarify, I reject the notion that mankind got a long on 2 hours of work (on average) a day to survive.
Perhaps in lush environments where there is an abundance of food, mild weather, ample clean and running water, available timber and basic resources needed for construction, this might be true. However, the majority of the world, and the people found in that world, do not enjoy such conditions.

How many hours a day does your average preditor work?

dicktice · 2002-11-10 14:05:09

it`s doubtful there is any hurry to get to mars.

Perhaps...but there is a strong case, in view of asteroid/comet impact unpredictability, not to mention self-inflicted cataclysms, to start preparing for Humankind and Earth ecology to thrive off-planet: in space colonies, hollowed-out planetoids, the Moon, as well as Mars! Where is your sense of survival, having seen (I presume) how vulnerable we are, in those breathtaking old Apollo, en route, photos of Earth?

dicktice · 2002-11-10 14:10:15

So the secret is to do away with all the work, let most of this surplus population die, then the survivors (all 12 of em) can live off the naturaly occuring food and not have to work 40 hour weeks.
I don't buy it.
Or develop artificial intelligence to the point where it can do most of the human labor autonomously and then make people share holders in the state who recieve dividends from these largely robotic dependant corporations (I believe Alaska does something like this.) And yes, before you go calling me a hypocrite for suggesting such a socialistic thing, I still think people should have all the rights to start up their own businesses if they choose. Yeah, you scoff and laugh now but in 100 years, 200 years....

Truly intelligent, artificial intelligence would become bored with repetive, boring, slavery and simply rebel!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-10 19:19:56

Dicktice is in august company when he points out the urgency of getting off-planet as an insurance policy against large asteroid extinction events which could finish off the human race.
I came across a news item a few weeks ago in which John Young, veteran astronaut of two Gemini missions, two Apollo missions, and two Shuttle missions, spoke about this very topic.
He said it is a matter of urgency that we establish human colonies in space at the earliest opportunity. He included catastrophic volcanism and asteroid impacts as reasons for his views. Volcanism is responsible for at least as many extinctions as impact damage.

When someone like John Young tells you something serious, I for one think it's probably wise to listen carefully.

dicktice · 2002-11-12 15:56:01

I think a good example of the mystical aspect of extreme environmentalism is the concept of Gaia, that the Earth is somehow one gigantic living being and that humanity is more often than not her nemesis. It's a kind of anthropomorphism of the entire planet. I think this mystical quality is important for a lot of people because it builds an emotional bridge to their beliefs. Unfortunately such emotionally motivated beliefs often obliterate any sense of rationality

Actually, the brutal truth of HOW you think, move fingers and then type what you think on these marvelous machines of ours comes from sparks of chemically induced electricity flowing across the holes (synapses) of your mind. Is it so prepostorous for the electromagnetic spectrum field that inhabits a human and enables it to function to 'think' that a similar electromagnetic spectrum field isn't somehow 'aware' of the Universe on its own level? Talk about anthropomorphism in the extreme. Who is REALLY electromagnetically 'powerfull' enough to say to the Universe:
It can't be that way?

dicktice · 2002-11-12 16:01:37

I think a good example of the mystical aspect of extreme environmentalism is the concept of Gaia, that the Earth is somehow one gigantic living being and that humanity is more often than not her nemesis. It's a kind of anthropomorphism of the entire planet. I think this mystical quality is important for a lot of people because it builds an emotional bridge to their beliefs. Unfortunately such emotionally motivated beliefs often obliterate any sense of rationality
Actually, the brutal truth of HOW you think, move fingers and then type what you think on these marvelous machines of ours comes from sparks of chemically induced electricity flowing across the holes (synapses) of your mind. Is it so prepostorous for the electromagnetic spectrum field that inhabits a human and enables it to function to 'think' that a similar electromagnetic spectrum field isn't somehow 'aware' of the Universe on its own level? Talk about anthropomorphism in the extreme. Who is REALLY electromagnetically 'powerfull' enough to say to the Universe:
It can't be that way?

How about the fixed rate of electromagnetic radiation's propagation? Surely the speed of light must obviate the phenomenon of realtime self-awareness in a universal mind. I'd say Einstein was "powerful enough to say it can't be that way." Besides, what's the point, since we seem to be on our own for all practical purposes. Time to grow up, humankind, and leave the cradle! (Not my thought, but I subscribe to it).

dicktice · 2002-11-17 13:36:01

So the secret is to do away with all the work, let most of this surplus population die, then the survivors (all 12 of em) can live off the naturaly occuring food and not have to work 40 hour weeks.
I don't buy it.
Or develop artificial intelligence to the point where it can do most of the human labor autonomously and then make people share holders in the state who recieve dividends from these largely robotic dependant corporations (I believe Alaska does something like this.) And yes, before you go calling me a hypocrite for suggesting such a socialistic thing, I still think people should have all the rights to start up their own businesses if they choose. Yeah, you scoff and laugh now but in 100 years, 200 years....

You had better define "artificial intelligence," because robots capable of "thinking" surely would become bored, like humans, with most repetitive labour and go on strike...or contrary to Asimov's precepts: even (gasp!) rebel!

Phobos · 2002-11-17 15:25:52

You had better define "artificial intelligence," because robots capable of "thinking" surely would become bored, like humans, with most repetitive labour and go on strike...or contrary to Asimov's precepts: even (gasp! rebel!

We'll just design them so that they never become bored and wouldn't dream of doing anything else! Sometimes I wish someone program me like that. No wait I take that back.....*recieving transmission through metal helmet*......

tim_perdue · 2002-11-19 19:34:20

If the real motivation here is "survival of the species", then why not build a sealed complex here on earth and live in it?

Think about it, if you have to build a sealed community and ship it to mars, surely the same thing could be built here deep underground at a fraction of the cost (plenty of old mines available).

Phobos · 2002-11-19 21:31:17

Why limit ourselves to just one option? If we're interested in survival of the species we should do all of the above! Some can go underground and other above it!

AltToWar · 2002-11-20 00:34:42

You had better define "artificial intelligence," because robots capable of "thinking" surely would become bored, like humans, with most repetitive labour and go on strike...or contrary to Asimov's precepts: even (gasp! rebel!
We'll just design them so that they never become bored and wouldn't dream of doing anything else! Sometimes I wish someone program me like that. No wait I take that back.....*recieving transmission through metal helmet*......

just install solitare!~

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-10-03 22:46:19

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#27 2002-10-04 10:17:40

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#28 2002-10-04 19:09:15

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#29 2002-10-04 19:50:56

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#30 2002-10-04 21:06:58

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#31 2002-10-07 15:09:57

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#32 2002-10-07 18:00:40

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#33 2002-10-08 10:25:49

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#34 2002-10-08 21:41:20

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#35 2002-10-09 01:02:42

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#36 2002-10-09 12:14:18

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#37 2002-10-09 21:11:34

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#38 2002-11-10 14:05:09

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#39 2002-11-10 14:10:15

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#40 2002-11-10 19:19:56

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#41 2002-11-12 15:56:01

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#42 2002-11-12 16:01:37

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#43 2002-11-17 13:36:01

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#44 2002-11-17 15:25:52

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#45 2002-11-19 19:34:20

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#46 2002-11-19 21:31:17

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#47 2002-11-20 00:34:42

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

Board footer