Selectionism - An Ideology for Martian Settlement

Scott G. Beach · 2004-03-27 22:43:17

I have proposed the construction of a prototype Martian settlement named The City of Euthenia (see [http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743]http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743). Some of the people who live in that settlement would join together to design and construct "experimental neighborhoods" in which they build a sociocultural system that can maintain and replicate itself on Mars.

I have not recommended that the political systems of those neighborhoods should be democratic, monarchic, theocratic, etc. And I have not recommended that the economic systems of those neighborhoods should be communistic, socialistic, or capitalistic. I believe that the people who design and build those neighborhoods should decide what kind of political and economic systems those neighborhoods should have.

I have designed a technological system that I believe could support human life on Mars and I am recommending that the people who live in that technological system should decide what kind of political and economic systems they will have.

I believe that the Martian ecosystem will select some sociocultural designs and reject others. I refer to this belief as selectionism. I am a selectionist.

Mundaka · 2004-04-18 02:01:42

rstones8 · 2004-04-20 00:07:51

I believe that the people who design and build those neighborhoods should decide what kind of political and economic systems those neighborhoods should have.

You mean vote? Sounds like democracy to me.

JammerG55 · 2004-04-28 13:16:40

I don't like the idea of a parliment because the mrime minister is also a member of that parliment. We should have a presidential government because that way the parlimential powers would not superseed the powers of the president. like wise with the court system.

C M Edwards · 2004-04-28 15:44:32

Mathematical modeling of governments as decision making “voting systems” (in which a pure democracy is one voting system with all members voting, a fascist state is a voting system with only a small fraction of the members voting, a dictatorship is a voting system with only one member voting, etc.) reveals: a voting system can be either completely egalitarian, completely logical & representative, or completely decisive, but not all three.

Governments sometimes try to define themselves by which of these qualities they have the most of. Dictatorships play themselves up as being decisive. Democracies insist that they are egalitarian. Socialist governments claim to be logical and representative. However, the most efficient form of government isn’t a Dictatorship, a Democracy, or a Communist State. It is a Republic comprised of several distinct voting oligarchies, each performing its own task and using its own voting system tailored to what it need to do. No government can be completely egalitarian, logical and decisive at all levels, but a republic can assign a governmental branch or agencies to be whichever one it needs to be at the time.

Italy, for example, has hilarious legislative politics because it’s a democracy. But its government works well because it’s a republic, not just a democracy.

The United States has an executive branch with no end of comic potential. But its government works well because it’s a republic, not just a dictatorship.

Great Britain has an amusing legislature _and_ monarch. But again, it functions because it’s a republic.

You can’t say that a republic is always egalitarian, logical or decisive. But the most efficient republics are flexible enough to be whichever they need to be at the time.

All republics are a little bit schizophrenic. However, I couldn’t endorse a form of government that was always the same no matter which part of it I went to.

srmeaney · 2005-07-22 14:36:36

Great Britain has an amusing legislature _and_ monarch. But again, it functions because it’s a republic.

No it's not...
Like Australia (They are both Commonwealth Nations), it has certain laws that require every citizen to have an equal share of the benifits and responsibilities of citizenship. Unfortunately, like Australia it is burdened with a Beuracracy that wants none of that. Isnt interested in standing up for the rights of the individual (even though those rights are written in a law that over rules the authority and power of all government, law, constitution, and sovereign-requiring them to conform to the needs of the people), and cares nothing for the rule of a law that puts them on an equal footing with the ordinary citizen.

Every Commonwealth nation on earth has this. Which pretty much explains why they are self destructing-Beuracracy is incompatable with freedom of the individual. Commonwealth only works if you govern yourself under a law that covers everyone and are going to conform to the expectations thereof.

Logic of law is flawless. Conflict occurs because you are unwilling to recognise the authority of law, and are not interested in the equality that it pushes.

C M Edwards · 2005-08-18 12:49:38

Great Britain has an amusing legislature _and_ monarch. But again, it functions because it’s a republic.
No it's not...

Yes, it is.

However, I take your point about the dangers of giving bureaucracy free reign.

The mere existence of a bureaucracy within a republic does not cancel out its status as a republic any more than does the existence of a military with a strict chain of command. However, a bureaucracy allowed to act unchecked by any other branch of government can cause a nation to cease functioning as a republic, just as a military coup can. Once the decisions of all other component oligarchies cease to matter, a nation is no longer operating as a republic.

Government bureaucracies should have checks and balances just like parliaments and courts do. Otherwise, they become a liability to the republic.

Logic of law is flawless. Conflict occurs because you are unwilling to recognise the authority of law, and are not interested in the equality that it pushes.

Sorry, you lost me at "logic of law."

Seriously, though, a functional system of law is no more perfectly egalitarian than a functional republic is. As an institution, Law exists primarily to maintain social order. It serves other purposes from time to time, but has no higher priority. Equal application is an afterthought.

Grypd · 2005-08-18 16:37:30

Great Britain has an amusing legislature _and_ monarch. But again, it functions because it’s a republic.
No it's not...
Yes, it is.

No its not.

A republic is a society where each citizen actually owns a share of the goverment and anyone has the chance of leading the country. Great Britain is a constitutional Monarchy but it still is a Monarchy. In a republic the citizens and soldiers swear to defend the country and the rights of the people. In a constitutional Monarchy the Monarch owns everything the Army serve her, the goverment are there to run the country for her. A citizen of such a country only has as much rights as the Monarch has allowed. An example for the prime minister of Britain is that he must ask the Queens permission to form a goverment.

It is never going to happen but the Monarch can allways rule the country directly.

srmeaney · 2005-08-19 05:37:34

I have proposed the construction of a prototype Martian settlement named The City of Euthenia (see http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743). Some of the people who live in that settlement would join together to design and construct "experimental neighborhoods" in which they build a sociocultural system that can maintain and replicate itself on Mars.
I have not recommended that the political systems of those neighborhoods should be democratic, monarchic, theocratic, etc. And I have not recommended that the economic systems of those neighborhoods should be communistic, socialistic, or capitalistic. I believe that the people who design and build those neighborhoods should decide what kind of political and economic systems those neighborhoods should have.

Wouldnt that be a "gated suburb" on Mars or a Apartment governing committiee?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-27 22:43:17

Re: Selectionism - An Ideology for Martian Settlement

#2 2004-04-18 02:01:42

Re: Selectionism - An Ideology for Martian Settlement

#3 2004-04-20 00:07:51

Re: Selectionism - An Ideology for Martian Settlement

#4 2004-04-28 13:16:40

Re: Selectionism - An Ideology for Martian Settlement

#5 2004-04-28 15:44:32

Re: Selectionism - An Ideology for Martian Settlement

#6 2005-07-22 14:36:36

Re: Selectionism - An Ideology for Martian Settlement

#7 2005-08-18 12:49:38

Re: Selectionism - An Ideology for Martian Settlement

#8 2005-08-18 16:37:30

Re: Selectionism - An Ideology for Martian Settlement

#9 2005-08-19 05:37:34

Re: Selectionism - An Ideology for Martian Settlement

Board footer