KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

Aaron Chester · 2002-04-18 11:18:54

Alright. Here goes again.

...it is just a different take on the same material brought about by current views, social norms, public sentiment, precedent, the case at hand, etc.- if we allowed NO interpertation, we would end up with a static government that is unable to cope with a change in technology or social norms.

This is my point! When the meaning or "take" of material can be changed because we no longer agree with it, this can become oppressive. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled or at least has implied from recent decisions that there is a seperation form church and state. However, that is not what the constitution was intended to say. If it was, the Senate and House would not have a daily prayer before starting their business. Instead, the writers of the Constitution expected religion to be a vital part of the state. However, the state itself was not to make a law that held one religion above another, i.e. a set, memorized prayer in school. If we as a society no longer agree with this, then we need to ammend the Constitution. But, instead we have said that is not really what the writers meant. And, even if it was we are more enlightened and so we know better than they about the true purpose of religion in state affairs. This is true arrogance.

WHEN was that case? It is the height of arrogance to apply our current views on the historical past.

Yet, this is exactly what the Supreme court does each time it reinterprets an applied meaning in the past. I used the Dred Scott case because I figured more people would become upset if I used Roe v. Wade. In Roe v. Wade we see an application of the Constitution that was never intended or expected by the writers.

More to the point, judges should use strict constructionism when looking at the Constitution and not judicial activism. I agree that there has been some good that has come from judicial activism, however, I think in the end more bad will come from it than good.

...we would end up with a static government that is unable to cope with a change in technology or social norms.

This is not true, ammendments could change the Constitution, and even John Marshall's view on judicial review could be used in a limited form. Granted, the government would be a bit sluggish, but government is not intended to change fast. When things change quickly the government is swayed by fads or by the whims of the majority. I for one am not in favor of allowing the Constitution to be changed by the whimsical majority.

clark · 2002-04-18 16:04:29

This is my point! When the meaning or "take" of material can be changed because we no longer agree with it, this can become oppressive.

Do you understand WHY we have to interpret the constution? Do you realize that our nation is no longer composed of slaves, indentured servants, and instutionalized bigotry? We have to interpret the constution, and it must be flexible with the changes of time and society (like our framers INTENDED) or it becomes irrelavant. Changes in culture and technogy force us to reinterpret our laws and apply them to new situations- case in point THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Our forefathers intended for a 'well armed' 'militia'- but did they intend for that well armed militia to have fully automatic weapons?

For example, the Supreme Court has ruled or at least has implied from recent decisions that there is a seperation form church and state. However, that is not what the constitution was intended to say.

But that is what the constution DOES say! Some citizens feel that when they are forced to pray it violates their personal beliefs (some do not believe in God)- forcing someone to pray when they do not belive in prayer is wrong. Even if there is no coersion, the State cannot advocate any religion over another, or the belief in god over the non-belief of god- the State must remain neutral.

If it was, the Senate and House would not have a daily prayer before starting their business.

And they may continue to do so until someone has a problem with it. Just becuase the majority want something dosen't mean that it is right. The rights over the majority are equal to the rights of the minority in the eyes of justice.

Instead, the writers of the Constitution expected religion to be a vital part of the state.

Facinating! And where exactly would one find this in the constution?

However, the state itself was not to make a law that held one religion above another, i.e. a set, memorized prayer in school.

And if we apply this reasoning, we come to the conclusion that the State may not make a law that pushes religion in general, since there are those who disagree with the very concept of religion. If I don't believe in God, why must i be forced to pray?

If we as a society no longer agree with this, then we need to ammend the Constitution. But, instead we have said that is not really what the writers meant.

Well, no, because you are already operating from the assumption that you KNOW what the framers intended in all situations- you really can't know this. So they base their interpertation on precedent and what is WRITTEN. Lo and behold, people read the same writing and interpret it differently- they do this when they must APPLY the law to a NEW CASE, which usually involves situations that the framers never even dreamed! Roe vs. Wade, the framers had no clue.

In Roe v. Wade we see an application of the Constitution that was never intended or expected by the writers.

Which is EXACTLY what the framers had intended! It's a flexible document, which means we don't have to keep coming up with a new wheel everytime we get to a point where the Constution dosen't cover "something".

More to the point, judges should use strict constructionism when looking at the Constitution and not judicial activism. I agree that there has been some good that has come from judicial activism, however, I think in the end more bad will come from it than good.

I really don't understand why you think that the judical branch will, or can abuse us. All the judical branch can do is slow implementation of public policy- there remain plenty of checks to prevent them from becoming "oppresive" (even if that were possible). A popular law that gets struck down will be reworded in a way that will pass constutional muster- end of story. So whats the big deal?

This is not true, ammendments could change the Constitution, and even John Marshall's view on judicial review could be used in a limited form.

Ammendments are hard to pass for the very fact that we don't WANT ammendments. Ammendments are like the word of god- they are philosphical stances more than actual law- which is one reason that we can "interpret" them.

Granted, the government would be a bit sluggish, but government is not intended to change fast.

Yet what you suggest would make it UNRESPONSIVE. Everytime there is a disagreement that is not covered by the constution, any change in social norms or technology ultimately means we have to draw up new "ammendments" to deal with these unforseen problems- so what happens to the disagreements while we are busy making new ammendments?

When things change quickly the government is swayed by fads or by the whims of the majority.

Which is why the Judical Branch can overturn any legeslation- it's to prevent abuses by the majority- it's to prevent a demagogue from getting control and overturning all our rights.

I for one am not in favor of allowing the Constitution to be changed by the whimsical majority.

But that is what your argument ends up supporting. The jusdical system is need of reform, not the judical branch. Keep trying.

Aaron Chester · 2002-04-19 06:37:29

clark,

This has been a fascinating discussion. I have been enlightened a little and it has forced me to think, which is always good! I still believe in strict constructionism and I do not believe that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", however, you have made some valid points. We just have a disagreement over how involved the government should be in our lives and how quickly the meaning of the Constitution can or should be changed.

I do agree with you Cobra Commander, I think one of the reasons people will colonize Mars is because of political reasons. But, I don't think that can be the only reason. Unlike previous colonizations, the colonization of Mars will be very expensive. Though it was expensive to come to America, for example, colonists could still easily live off the land. Though Mars colonists will be able to live off the land a little, they will have to bring machines to help them live off the land, and that will be expensive.

I think the main reason people will go to Mars is economic reasons and adventure reasons. Once Mars is opened up the pioneers will come running. Can you imagine what it will be like to explore a planet that has never seen intelligent life? It will be fantastic!

Cobra Commander · 2002-04-20 22:00:51

I think one of the reasons people will colonize Mars is because of political reasons. But, I don't think that can be the only reason.

Politics will certainly be only one of many reasons driving colonists to Mars. I think it's reasonable to assume that as colonies grow and build infrastructure politics will become more important than is likely at the start. As the means to live off the land increase, (though in a radically different way from the somewhat overused colonial America analogy) it will become more practical for groups to establish colonies for primarily political reasons. I am in complete agreement that it probably won't cut it as the sole factor, but it is certain to figure in to a degree.

clark · 2002-04-23 08:14:56

We just have a disagreement over how involved the government should be in our lives and how quickly the meaning of the Constitution can or should be changed.

Where have I implied a level of involvement by government within our lives that is acceptable? I ask becuase I have kept my statements restricted to the current issue of the Judical Branch, and more specfically, the role of judges in interpreting laws.

You also imply, by the latter part of your statement, that there is an "acceptable" amount of time that may pass when the Constitution can be changed- eactly how long were you thinking?

It might help if you could provide specfics of where the interpretation of the Constution has deviated from the Founders original intent. How do you establish what is, and isn't, the framers intent? How do you know?

I do agree with you Cobra Commander, I think one of the reasons people will colonize Mars is because of political reasons.

What politcal reasons would cause someone to leave Earth permanetly? What politcal "freedom" is available on Mars that is not available on Earth? If you have the technology to live on Mars, you consquently have the neccessary technology to live ANYWHERE on Earth- why travel umpteen million miles to live in a desolate place when you can do that for a fraction of the cost and time in Antartica or on the ocean floor?

Though Mars colonists will be able to live off the land a little, they will have to bring machines to help them live off the land, and that will be expensive.

The population of Mars will be limited by the high cost of living associated with supporting someone in vacum. When factoring in basic commodities we take for granted on Mother Earth (free air, free movement, free food, etc.)- when you have to calculate out how much air you have available, it limits rampant population growth or development.

Can you imagine what it will be like to explore a planet that has never seen intelligent life?

This is a constant theme advocated by many, and it only demonstates how UN-imaginative Mars Advocates are. There are parts of the Earth that haven't seen intelligent life (entire nations come to mind)- most of the ocean has yet to be mapped. Millions of acres of jungle have yet to be explored- there are literaly thousands, if not millions, of UNDISCOVERED LIFE still on this planet! Everything you THINK you can find on Mars, you can find here.

Cobra Commander · 2002-04-25 11:27:59

What politcal reasons would cause someone to leave Earth permanetly? What politcal "freedom" is available on Mars that is not available on Earth? If you have the technology to live on Mars, you consquently have the neccessary technology to live ANYWHERE on Earth- why travel umpteen million miles to live in a desolate place when you can do that for a fraction of the cost and time in Antartica or on the ocean floor?

Earth, at least in most of the Western world allows the political freedom to talk, not to do. If a group wanted to settle an area and govern themselves by their own principles there are few options. Antarctica has the problem of international treaties prohibiting its development, although that may not be as big an obstacle as it seems depending on the resources and guile of the people attempting it. Remember that the United States was built on a long series of broken treaties. The ocean floor has similar problems as well as being in some ways a more difficult enviroment to live in than Mars. The major problem however is that it's on Earth. To quote Dr. Zubrin from 'The Case For Mars, "the cops are too close". Mars offers an opportunity for political visionaries and malcontents of all types to go off and live by their own creeds while at the same time developing Mars for further colonization down the line, everybody wins. Every corner of Earth is just too accesible by outside powers who think they know best to allow for political self determination.

clark · 2002-04-29 10:58:36

Earth, at least in most of the Western world allows the political freedom to talk, not to do.

What are you NOT allowed to do here that you would be able to do once on Mars?

If a group wanted to settle an area and govern themselves by their own principles there are few options.

Well, lets be a bit more specfic- what principles are they denied? What form of government are they NOT allowed?

Antarctica has the problem of international treaties prohibiting its development, although that may not be as big an obstacle as it seems depending on the resources and guile of the people attempting it.

There are politcal hurdles involved with getting to Mars, not to mention any unresolved politcal disputes over what is done with Mars once humans can actually go there- so in both instances, there are politcal hurdles to the objective, why do you feel that the Martian politcal hurdles are more surmountable than any earthly ones?

The ocean floor has similar problems as well as being in some ways a more difficult enviroment to live in than Mars.

Living in a vacum on an alien planet millions of miles from any kind of re-supply or support is EASIER than the ocean? Both situations are diffucult, and both probably have advantages and disadvantages- but the fact remains, anything you can do on mars, you can do on earth easier and cheaper- the infrastructure is here and there is NO launch cost.

Mars offers an opportunity for political visionaries and malcontents of all types to go off and live by their own creeds while at the same time developing Mars for further colonization down the line, everybody wins.

Yet, besidesbeing generally a "malcontent", what do these politcal visonairies offer mars? By all accounts, there is no room for wasted space on Mars- everyone must pull their own weight. So the question is, what do these people offer the REST of the martian people who are there for the scientific research and the exploration (even the commercial intrests?)?

Every corner of Earth is just too accesible by outside powers who think they know best to allow for political self determination.

You fool yourself by believeing that you can escape the "outside powers" (whom YOU happen to be a part of) when by neccessity and by reality you are required to depend on those very same "outside powers" to place you outside of their reach.

Josh Cryer · 2002-04-30 16:04:38

I know that you're not talking to me, but I'll butt in anyway.

What are you NOT allowed to do here that you would be able to do once on Mars?

In all fairness, since Mars isn't really in the picture, you can't ask this. You're asking what we're not allowed to do now compared to what we'd be able to do in the future.

But we can still make a very valid argument that we're not allowed to advance intersteller colonization by simply staying here.

Mars would undoubtedly pioneer such colonization. I know that the first thing that comes to your mind is Luna, but Luna is much like ?England? in contrast to ?America.? And I doubt very seriously anyone considers those who went to England global oceanic pioneers.

Well, lets be a bit more specfic- what principles are they denied? What form of government are they NOT allowed?

Well, none, you could say. But let's get something straight, new cultures are very difficult to create within societies. Societies are not quick to change. The easiest way is to seperate yourself from a society and start anew.

As an example: would you not agree that it would be difficult to start a communistic society within a capitalistic society?

(This is not supposed to be a discussion on the feasibility or maintainability of communism, I'm just asking if you think it would be possible.)

Government isn't the by-product of the frontier. Culture is. (Which I think is what Commander was alluding to.)

There are politcal hurdles involved with getting to Mars

Tell that to China when they beat us.

You fool yourself by believeing that you can escape the "outside powers" (whom YOU happen to be a part of) when by neccessity and by reality you are required to depend on those very same "outside powers" to place you outside of their reach.

I'm not sure what you're saying, really.

I certainly think it's impossible to ?depend? on something that is, at its closest point, 34 million miles or so...

...depending on these ?outside powers? to get you there is totally irrelevant to surviving there.

Bill White · 2002-04-30 19:46:49

Josh writes, in part,

<< But let's get something straight, new cultures are very difficult to create within societies. Societies are not quick to change. The easiest way is to seperate yourself from a society and start anew.>>

I find it curious that many "Westerners" (USA/UK/Australia?) see Mars as a venue for developing new and improved cultures. I doubt the Chinese space program is being funded to allow their people new forms of cultural expression.

I wish to introduce the ideas of Samuel Huntington ("Clash of Civilizations") to the discussion - not necessarily because I agre with everything he writes - but rather to see what reactions are.

He argues that world history in the 21st century will be driven by conflicts between the major cultures of the world. These clashes will be military, economic, ideologica and possibly demographic. As I recall, he defines a number of major cultures -

The West: Judeo-Christian
Islam: Islamic
Indian: Hindu
Chinese: Sinic
Orthodox: Greek/Serbian/Russian
African: various native belief systems
Japanese:
South American: (more native influences exist than in NA)

I may be in error on some specifics (mea culpa!)

Anyway, if any one of these cultures were to establish a permanent settlement on Mars and start having children at a high birthrate, none of the others could possibly allow that settlement to go unchallenged, or in a few decades/centuries that "culture" would have a planet all to themselves.

A high birthrate would require:

(1)Sufficiently available water (ice mining or by drilling)
An ability to extract raw materials for hydroponic solution from martian regolith;

Bill White · 2002-04-30 20:01:22

Sorry again, I accidentally hit the tab key twice plus Enter!

Last post unedited and incomplete, but anyway:

A high birth rate requires:

1. Water supply

2. Ability to formulate hydroponic solutions from regolith and recycled plant and human waste. Red worms to process waste vegetable matter would seem useful - make black dirt through micro-terraforming. (One kilogram at a time)

3. Ability to extract oxygen from CO2.

4. Nuclear reactors for sufficient power - plural

5. Brick making machinery and the continuing importation of plastics or kevlar sheeting to seal and insulate. Sprayed on plastic foam applied to the inside of a brick habitat?

6. Sufficient human motivation.

If you have these six resources, why couldn't famillies continually expand their habitat every time new children were expected?

Historian Bernard Bailyn has suggested that the most important historical event of the 2nd millenium of the current era - the years 1000 CE / 2000 CE - was the European emigration to and settlement of the Western hemisphere.

Suppose in the year 1500 Chinese sailing ships brought settlers to modern day California and Peru - how would world history have been different? How would European history been different?

If China places permanent settlers on Mars before USA/Europe the potential ironies are staggering to comprehend.

Bill White · 2002-04-30 20:18:30

Suppose in the year 1500 Chinese sailing ships brought settlers to modern day California and Peru - how would world history have been different? How would European history have been different?

If in the 1500s there began a thriving cross-Pacific exchange between China and the west coasts of North and South America with growing Chinese colonies in the western hemisphere, I very much doubt the English would have settled Australia and Japan's history would be markedly different.

The Great Plains of North America as a meeting ground between East and West? Chinese and English settlers battle it out for control of the Mississippi basin? Sounds like a great idea for a novel!

Kim Stanley Robinson's new book (on order - not yet read) is based on the premise that the plague wipes out European civilization before the voyages of Columbus. Perhaps he can now write another novel using this premise.

Anyway, I agree with Zubrin that the settlement of Mars will eventually be seen as one of these key turning points in human history.

Josh Cryer · 2002-04-30 22:11:33

I find it curious that many "Westerners" (USA/UK/Australia?) see Mars as a venue for developing new and improved cultures. I doubt the Chinese space program is being funded to allow their people new forms of cultural expression.

Hmm... you don't think surviving in a near vaccume, using high technology, isn't a new culture? I'm not talking about ?expression.?

I'm talking about a raw space faring, colonizing, culture.

If China places permanent settlers on Mars before USA/Europe the potential ironies are staggering to comprehend.

Could you elaborate on this? What would be ?ironic? about China settling Mars?

Hopefully their space program isn't hindered by special interests bureaucrats like our own space program. There's no doubt they have the resources otherwise.

You know, to be honest... I have a feeling my chances of getting to Mars are greater if I move to China.

Bill White · 2002-04-30 22:42:08

<<Could you elaborate on this? What would be ?ironic? about China settling Mars?>>

Zubrin (& others) have discussed the decision of the Ming emperors to destroy all of their ocean sailing technology during the 15th century. Why explore or colonize - it would be de-stabilizing to the Chinese leadership.

Another recent claim is that a large Chinese fleet circled the globe well before Magellan. The historian is holding off releasing his evidence for the time being - so we cannot yet be certain about the circumnavigation.

But it seems more certain that a Chinese fleet with hundreds of ships, many of them much larger than anything the Portugese or Spanish were building at the time, rounded the Cape of Good Hope before Columbus sailed to America.

Had a large Chinese fleet reached Lisbon, Europeans would have been the discover-ees not the discover-ers.

The decision to abandon ocean going technology, to focus on internal Chinese domestic affairs was a necessary factor for the Western world (Europe/USA) becoming the dominant economic/military/cultural force in the 19th and 20th centuries.

If the West (USA/Europe) refrains from settling space, despite its huge current lead in space technology because those societies cannot find the political or social will to just go and do it while China does settle space, the West will have made the same "mistake" in the 21st century that the Chinese made in the 15th century.

I think that would be ironic.

AndyM · 2002-05-01 00:49:40

I think this brings up an important point, which is that if a society isn't progressing then it is degressing. Most societies are continually progressing and if one society stops progressing then relative to the other progressing societies, it is degressing. A society can not maintain its status quo without falling behind in the world.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-01 07:38:04

Fascinating stuff, Bill!! I've always been a fan of those "What if .... " kind of alternative history books, but I've never considered what might have happened had the Chinese not abandoned world exploration when they did.
And now, if they do get to Mars while the West sits on its hands, it will indeed be an irony of epic proportions!!
Thanks for the very interesting post, Bill. I do love a little bit of history .... even if it hasn't happened yet!

clark · 2002-05-01 08:01:52

Mars would undoubtedly pioneer such colonization. I know that the first thing that comes to your mind is Luna, but Luna is much like ?England? in contrast to ?America.? And I doubt very seriously anyone considers those who went to England global oceanic pioneers.

Why would Mars "undoubtably" pioneer such colonization? Luna, or even colonization of free space allows for a greater flexibility than Mars can provide- when all is said and done, if you learn to live on Mars, you learn the skills neccessary to live in a near vacum and certain resources that are available on mars- if you learn to live on Luna, or in free space, with its relative LACk of resources (when compared to Mars as EVREYONE points out ) then you can truly live anywhere. Your assumptions might be affected by your bias.

Well, none, you could say. But let's get something straight, new cultures are very difficult to create within societies. Societies are not quick to change. The easiest way is to seperate yourself from a society and start anew.

You say "easiest way"- you suggest the easiest way to start a new culture is to uproot enough individuals millions of miles to another planet so there is enough "space" between THEM and US so that a new culture can form- wouldn't it be EASIER to find, or buy, some empty land far removed from anyone (take a look at Siberia) and do what you want? After all, you then don't have to deal with all the technological and politcal hurdles- plus the logistical problems inherent in Martian colonization. Seems starting a new culture on Mars is HARDER than doing the same thing here on Earth.

As an example: would you not agree that it would be difficult to start a communistic society within a capitalistic society?

Difficult, maybe, impossible, NO. It's difficult to start a Mars colony, yet you accept that as possible and doable, so how can anything else be considered too difficult?

Government isn't the by-product of the frontier. Culture is.

How do you establish this assertion?

I'm not sure what you're saying, really.

I was alluding to the common delusion that many Mars advocates are under (not all mind you)- that they want to go to Mars becuase they want to get away from the "powers that be"- but it is a foolish dream becuase in order to get to thee place they want to be, which is away from the powers that be, they must DEPEND on the powers that be to get them there.

It's like expecting the man that holds you hostage will save your life because you ask him to.

Josh Cryer · 2002-05-01 13:06:40

Why would Mars "undoubtably" pioneer such colonization?

Think about it... when we went to England, did we necessarily build ships that could traverse huge oceans? Of course not... we didn't need to. Just like we don't need to build a large, self sustaining ship to go to Luna. It's a 3 day trip after all! Heck, passive shielding isn't even necessary. A lot of stuff isn't necessary.

Mars is, as I said, the great landmass on the other side of the ocean. Nothing compares to that.

If you learn to live on Mars, you learn the skills neccessary to live in a near vaccume and certain resources that are available on Mars- if you learn to live on Luna, or in free space, with its relative LACK of resources then you can truly live anywhere.

But then, the question is asked, how would you learn to truely live on Luna with Earth a mere quarter million miles away? Luna would clearly have dependency on Earth. Say we get the capablity to survive on Luna without outside resources; there would still be both diplomatic and economic ties to Earth. Everyone would want a piece of the pie. Wouldn't you agree?

Luna has a constant launch window. Mars has one every two years.

Seems starting a new culture on Mars is HARDER than doing the same thing here on Earth.

I thought I was referring to space colonization, and generalizing aspects of society. But if we were to break it down, obviously it is harder to have one society within the other. ####, almost every #### war is based on societies clashing.

:\

How do you establish this assertion?

It's not self evident? Culture doesn't exclude government, but government isn't generalized enough to cover all the necessary by-products. New lifestyles where people wear space suits every day, or build new kinds of waste reclamation facilities would be cultural, not governmental.

Is this illogical?

It's like expecting the man that holds you hostage will save your life because you ask him to.

I see absolutely no correlation there. Robert Zubrin is constantly saying that self sustenance is necessary. Once you are self sustaining, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do from the outside. Especially when you have a two year launch window!

Mars really offers nothing to anyone except a new place to live. You could make the same claim about Luna, but Luna is still arguably within grasp of anyone who wishes to control.

And Bill, I agree that that would be very ironic! In many ways I hope history pans out that way. But we'll have to see.

On a depressing note, it seems as though American interest in Space is at a 5 year low... so... yeah...

clark · 2002-05-01 14:35:23

I appreciate your point of view John. That being said...

Think about it... when we went to England, did we necessarily build ships that could traverse huge oceans? Of course not... we didn't need to. Just like we don't need to build a large, self sustaining ship to go to Luna. It's a 3 day trip after all! Heck, passive shielding isn't even necessary. A lot of stuff isn't necessary.

I understand your analogy, however I feel the analogy does not apply. Irregardless of the amount of time neccessary to get to the destination, the requirements for surviving in free space or on Luna, are much greater than living on Mars. And that in of itself is the point. If you can make an environment on Luna or in free space that is habitable, it will be more robust than anything developed on mars- Now, once we have the habitat, we merely take that same technology and strap rockets on it.

Before we crossed that wide ocean, we knew how to live off the land- I am suggesting that luna or free space make a better teacher than Mars.

But then, the question is asked, how would you learn to truely live on Luna with Earth a mere quarter million miles away? Luna would clearly have dependency on Earth.

There will always be a dependency between space endeavours and earth for the forseeable long term future- it's reality, so arguing the point to decide who is MORE dependant is a waste of time- however, if you feel that this is a critical issue, we can debate the points, but i think you might agree that would prove ultimetly unproductive.

Say we get the capablity to survive on Luna without outside resources; there would still be both diplomatic and economic ties to Earth. Everyone would want a piece of the pie. Wouldn't you agree?

Your statement implies that this situation does not apply itself to mars, why not?

Luna has a constant launch window. Mars has one every two years.

Mars does have a constant launch window, it just costs LESS once every two years. Now, let us imagine colonization efforts underway on Mars- this suggests cheaper launch costs- it also suggests a practical means for transporting people and/or goods between the two planets- How long do you honestly believe that Mars would be restricted by it's natural "Launch window"?

I thought I was referring to space colonization, and generalizing aspects of society. But if we were to break it down, obviously it is harder to have one society within the other. ####, almost every #### war is based on societies clashing.

"Hard" is such a subjective term, I wonder if you might be able to qualify the idea with examples of how it is "hard". Also, every human conflict is the result of distribution and control of limited resources- culture, race, religion, governemnt types- these are all means to unite independant people by seperating them from "others".

Culture doesn't exclude government, but government isn't generalized enough to cover all the necessary by-products.

But government is the product of Culture, which you assert is the by-product of the Fronteir- so in effect, government would be the by-product of the Fronteir since the Fronteir helps shapes Culture. I'm not sure how this is relevant, so maybe we could clarify this issue some more if we wish to continue discussing this particular point.

I see absolutely no correlation there. Robert Zubrin is constantly saying that self sustenance is necessary. Once you are self sustaining, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do from the outside. Especially when you have a two year launch window!

Okay, YOU can't get to Mars by yourself, which means YOU must DEPEND on some "OTHER" to get YOU to Mars. Now, the "OTHERS" that can get YOU to Mars, are the SAME "OTHERS" that YOU want to get AWAY from. Now, WHY would an "OTHER" want to put YOU on Mars if all they get is the metaphorical "Finger" once YOU get there?

Self sustaining is a Utopian ideal that should be strived for, but NOT planned for. The reality of life and the situation will dictate for a very long time to come that any space endeavour is ultimately linked to Earth in some form- either as a resource, or as a market. So self sustaining bases are great, it isn't practical- you have to ask questions like- is it cheaper to produce and ship a roll of toilet paper from earth, or is it cheaper and easier to create the trees, tools to cut the tree, processing plant for the lumber, water for the trees, energy for the plant, another plant to convert the lumber into toilet paper, etc... Thats self sustaining. How do you see that EVER being accomplished? Not to mention that any improvements in launch costs or transit times ultimately DEFEATS the goal of self sustaining (your arguments AGAINST Luna now can be used against Mars)

Mars really offers nothing to anyone except a new place to live. You could make the same claim about Luna, but Luna is still arguably within grasp of anyone who wishes to control.

You can say the same exact thing about anywhere, so it is a moot point. If all places are equal in this regard, then why is Mars any better?

Josh Cryer · 2002-05-02 15:14:22

Irregardless of the amount of time neccessary to get to the destination, the requirements for surviving in free space or on Luna, are much greater than living on Mars.

I disagree. Luna doesn't require self sustenence.

(If you remember the moon thread, we were discussing self sustenence, and what place would be harder, Luna, or Mars.)

If you did have self sustenence on Luna, Luna's ?value? would drop greatly. The only reason Luna would be ?valuable? is exchange, and things of that nature.

I'd say ?value? is based on an inablity to survive. Consider the middle east... countries whose value is mostly fuel. Can they survive on their own without outside imports? Well, I would certainly say they could, they do, after all, have the worlds best water purification facilities; and I don't see why that can't be expanded into biosphere (for food growth) and other kinds of similiar technologies. But do they survive on their own, or even try? Of course not, and I doubt they could, because the minute they stop selling oil, the minute they get bombed to death.

Do you agree with this?

If not, what would be valuable about Luna?

There will always be a dependency between space endeavours and earth for the forseeable long term future.

Not sure how long your forseeable long term future is, but I'm talking about colonization phases. And I hope for the sake of efficiency we aren't depending on Earth. I'm not sure there is any truth to what you've said, myself.

Your statement implies that this situation does not apply itself to Mars, why not?

What ?product? does Mars offer Earth? I can see a hundred things Luna would offer. From space tourism to fuel to military outposts. All within near reach of Earth, not millions of miles away. Mars would be prohibitive, compared to Luna.

How long do you honestly believe that Mars would be restricted by it's natural "Launch window"?

As long as the gains outweigh the costs, I'd say. Although, I admit, capitalism has a way of making you think you're gaining when you're actually losing, so perhaps this analogy is getting old.

I'm not sure how [culture] is relevant.

I was just using it to argue that we couldn't have a space faring culture here on Earth. You were suggesting to Commander that Mars offers nothing Earth couldn't offer, and I was using that as an example of what Mars could offer (I admit we could apply this to Luna, but there's still that bit of denendency).

Okay, YOU can't get to Mars by yourself, which means YOU must DEPEND on some "OTHER" to get YOU to Mars.

Yes, I can't fly either so I have to ride in an airplane, and when I'm on vaction, I can't drive, so I need to take a taxi.

Now, the "OTHERS" that can get YOU to Mars, are the SAME "OTHERS" that YOU want to get AWAY from.

Most planes I've flown on are quite nice, non-smoking policies on all of them. So I wouldn't necessarily say I want to get ?away? from them. I just want to do my thing without having to rely on them, and I'd say once I reach my destination I don't need them anymore.

Now, WHY would an "OTHER" want to put YOU on Mars if all they get is the metaphorical "Finger" once YOU get there?

Ah. Therein lies your logic. I can't take a taxi... I can't fly an airplane... and I can't build my own space ship, because for some reason, I have to rely on these ?others? even after they've provided their service.

Self sustaining is a Utopian ideal that should be strived for, but NOT planned for.

Existing (large scale, like a colony on Mars) outside of Earth is impossible if you have to rely on it! In fact... if all you're doing is taking resources from Earth, Earth would eventually lose the ablity to sustain itself. It's called an ecosystem.

The reality of life and the situation will dictate for a very long time to come that any space endeavour is ultimately linked to Earth in some form- either as a resource, or as a market.

Ah, see, this is illogical. I can fly a ship to Mars. Build a space ship on Mars, and take back the ship I flew to Mars in. Every single ounce! And I do not see why I need rely on Earth to do this. I would personally say that such endeavours are impossible if you rely on Earth.

So self sustaining bases are great, it isn't practical.

Hah! It's necessary!

Is it cheaper to produce and ship a roll of toilet paper from earth, or is it cheaper and easier to create the trees, tools to cut the tree, processing plant for the lumber, water for the trees, energy for the plant, another plant to convert the lumber into toilet paper.

Hehehe... let's take your example seriously (even though we all know toilet paper is for barbarians and the future is in self cleaning toilets, tee hee). Ask yourself the same question with regard to something here on Earth... is it cheaper to ship fuel from Iraq, or is it cheaper to use fuel from Texas? Think about it! How much is a gallon of gas in Iraq? Under 20 cents last I heard! Local resources are always cheaper. Clearly, long term planning should have self sustenance in mind. Without it, we're doomed! Just like the middle east will be when they run out of oil to sell and have nothing ?valuable? to share.

If all places are equal in this regard, then why is Mars any better?

The cost of controlling Mars will be prohibitive for quite awhile. Especially since building a reliance system will prove very difficult between the two. You die on Mars if you can't survive without Earth.

clark · 2002-05-03 12:49:05

If you did have self sustenence on Luna, Luna's ?value? would drop greatly. The only reason Luna would be ?valuable? is exchange, and things of that nature.

But thios reasoning can be applied to any Mars argument. Besides, even with a "self-sustaining" base on Luna the value of Luna is not affected- it's calue is inherent in it's location and the materials that are available on Luna itself. Luna resources can be exploited for other projects- Mars dosen't really have this option due to the gravity well.

I'd say ?value? is based on an inablity to survive. Consider the middle east... countries whose value is mostly fuel.

I disagree. The value of the middle east is derived becuase they have A COMMODITY that is not abundant elsewhere on Earth- apply the same scenerio to Luna with He3- even with self-sustaining bases on Luna, the value of the resources for general exploitation and near by markets that WANT the resources ensure that Luna is 'valuable'- Mars is too far away and the cost is economicaly prohibitive to try and get the resources that it does have to markets that want it.

If not, what would be valuable about Luna?

Everything! Location Location Location! As you pointed out, it has a constantly cheap launch window. It can provide energy to a very hungry market (earth and near space), it can provide raw materials for space construction, fuel, etc.- all of this makes Luna valunable EVEN if it had a self-sustaining population- #### self sustaining adds to the stability of the whole endeavour because it reduces risk, which would speed capital investment.

And I hope for the sake of efficiency we aren't depending on Earth. I'm not sure there is any truth to what you've said, myself.

But is it neccessarily "effecient" to have Mars producing it's own toilet paper? Is it really an effecient use of space, power, and resources to devote to the production, maintence, and development of all the neccessary infrastructure to make the ONE finished product neccessary for "self-sustenance"? Water is a valuable commodity, is it effecient to use this water (and energy) to grow a tree for the sole purpose of turning it into toilet paper? You have to think about this for ANY finished product that is neccessary for self-sustainence. Do you have any idea about what is neccessary for micro-chip fabrication? You have to build the machines that allow you to build the topols that allow you to build the factory to build the chips- the more complex the neccessary product, the more layers of infrastructure that becomes neccessary- then you need to start considering raw materials, available labor, capital for expenditures (unless you have a new economy that will magically buy all this stuff), then you have to factor in all of the "things" that MUSt be produced first on Earth and then transported to Mars so you can begin to build the infrastructure.

All within near reach of Earth, not millions of miles away. Mars would be prohibitive, compared to Luna.

yes, Mars is less "valuable" to Earth in relation to Luna, however, the same politcical resons apply to Mars just as they do to Luna- Nations are wary to allow precedents to be set that might haunt them later- especially in terms of "open land". Irregardless of all these points, if a government has the capability, and the will to put people on another planet, I doubt they would just roll over and play dead when people decide to exert control contrary to the Nations interest.

I was just using it to argue that we couldn't have a space faring culture here on Earth.

Why not? We have sea-faring cultures which stay rooted to their home. In fact, we HAVE a space faring culture- this group is proof.

Yes, I can't fly either so I have to ride in an airplane, and when I'm on vaction, I can't drive, so I need to take a taxi.

You're mixing bad analogies. You can do all of these things becuase they are not contrary to the entity that provides these services to you. Can you fly to Cuba for vacation from a US destination? No. Why? Becuase it is contrary to the interest of the US- same with a Mars analogy when you declare that you want to go to Mars to escape the "power that be"- the powers that be are the only ones who can put you there, and it goes against their interest to put you outside of their reach.

I just want to do my thing without having to rely on them, and I'd say once I reach my destination I don't need them anymore.

Okay, now look at it this way- you want to go "somewhere", but need a transport to get there, you will follow the rules set by the transportation provider, but they know as soon as they take you there you will kill/rob/whatever to them- now, why would they transport you?

In fact... if all you're doing is taking resources from Earth, Earth would eventually lose the ablity to sustain itself. It's called an ecosystem.

It's an extension of the ecosystem- or if you prefer physics- Law of thermodynamics- energy cannot be destroyed or created, it can only be changed. Taking a fish out of the ocean removes it from the immediate eco-system, however, it is still a part of the ENTIRE eco-system. Earth has, and always lose resources- all matter is eventually turned into energy, and lost as waste heat.

Hah! It's necessary!

No, it is NOT! It is "neccessary" to make CURRENT economic models work. ISS is proof that self sustaining is NOT neccessary- it's nice, it makes things safer, but it dosen't make or break us.

Ask yourself the same question with regard to something here on Earth... is it cheaper to ship fuel from Iraq, or is it cheaper to use fuel from Texas?

There is more to this though- it IS cheaper to ship the fuel because all of the neccessary infrastructure to process the resource is nearby- the cost for extraction is less in the middle eastt than other areas- so us creating a gallon here can still cost more than a gallon there. And most of the price of gasoline is the result of taxes, not the true cost of the resource.

The cost of controlling Mars will be prohibitive for quite awhile. Especially since building a reliance system will prove very difficult between the two. You die on Mars if you can't survive without Earth.

But the reality of the environment makes this statement untrue. EVERYONE is in an electronicaly controlled habitat- the fact that Mars is SO dependant on Earth means that Earth holds all the cards- if you rebel, you die becuase earth can cut off supplies- and by the time you build a self sustaining base (50 - 100 years), there should be a more "reliable" transportation system- which further reinforces the position of Earth.

Furthermore, all Earth has to do is control orbital space- how do you fight back against an enemy you can't reach?

Josh Cryer · 2002-05-03 16:10:11

Besides, even with a "self-sustaining" base on Luna the value of Luna is not affected- it's calue is inherent in it's location and the materials that are available on Luna itself.

With self sustaining colonies on Luna, what would they need? Why would they concern themselves with sharing these materials? If Luna doesn't need to exchange with Earth for survivablity how would Luna be valuable? The only way is to force Luna.

No offense or anything, but I think we're having a communication problem again. Probably my fault as usual...

The value of the middle east is derived becuase they have A COMMODITY that is not abundant elsewhere on Earth

Well yeah, my comments didn't say otherwise. But if they were not dependent on outside resources, would they need to export their ?commodity?? I don't think so.

Let me reiterate using logic that agrees with you; the middle east is valuable because we can exploit their resources, and they can exploit ours. If they were an entity capable of surviving on their own, there would be no exploitable feature.

This is why we have so much interest in the middle east, we have to keep them depending on us because we depend on them so much.

If we had a renewable fuel source... would we need their oil? Nope... but they'd still need our exports... but look, oops, we don't need to export anymore because we don't need them...

even with self-sustaining bases on Luna, the value of the resources for general exploitation and near by markets that WANT the resources ensure that Luna is 'valuable'

Ah! Thank you. You prove my point for me! How do they ensure that these resources are exploitable? Perhaps by forcing these Luna colonists to depend on them? By controlling the shipping lines. By controlling the landing ports. By controlling everything! Hey, think about it, we'd have a space military and stuff.

It's probably possible to go to Luna without being part of this resource exploition, but it's only a matter of time before they start trolling in your back yard for your resources too.

self sustaining adds to the stability of the whole endeavour because it reduces risk, which would speed capital investment.

If we were self supporting, why would we bother exporting at all? What could be given in exchange? I mean, there is the cultural and technological benefit, sure, but other than that, what reason is their to export our local resources? (Culture and technology aren't physical resources since they can propagate without degenerating.)

If we're exporting our resources, we have to import resources to compensate. As an example, think about asteroids. They would be 100% export entities. We would take all their materials and use them for something useful. When we're done there would be nothing left.

<snips a lot of stuff regarding toilet paper>

We certainly don't use toilet paper in the ISS, so provide a more sane example. Think about why we use toilet paper. It's a cultural thing. We've been using it for going on a hundred years or so, so we're used to it. We're consumers, after all. We are quite inefficient in that respect.

I doubt they would just roll over and play dead when people decide to exert control contrary to the Nations interest.

I think China has the right idea in mind with their ?our moon base will be freely open to all humanity? policy. And by golly, I hope things go well for them in the coming years. To think, they're planning to go to the moon in 2005-2010. If they manage, wee, American interest in space will sky rocket!

Your comment here only backs up my argument. That it's not in a peoples best interest to cut off all dependency on certain nations. I mean, that kind of thing causes wars, you know.

Why not? We have sea-faring cultures which stay rooted to their home. In fact, we HAVE a space faring culture- this group is proof.

I have never once used a toilet that cleaned my butt for me, thankyouverymuch. But I would certanily use one in space, and on Mars (and heck, on Luna too!). Because it's obvious to me that such things are more efficient. They use them on the ISS, you know.

To say that we are space faring is a little of an overstatement. We are the pioneers, though.

You're mixing bad analogies.

Bah! You're the one who made it. I only applied your analogy.

The powers that be are the only ones who can put you there, and it goes against their interest to put you outside of their reach.

That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't necessarily require them to get me there. And I certainly don't require them to survive there. I find it odd that you think that Mars wouldn't escape the powers that be when the US escaped the powers that be on Independence Day.

I think you think it's impossible for certain political systems to ?escape? the ?powers that be.? Oh, it would be fine and dandy if we went to Mars using capitalistic means, but if we went there using a more socialistic approach, well, that's impossible from your point of view...

...I guess.

but they know as soon as they take you there you will kill/rob/ whatever to them- now, why would they transport you?

I'm certainly not robbing them. They shipped my supplies, and I'm able to sustain myself there. You think it's robbery because I'm not planning on letting them exploit resources they don't have a right to.

Earth has, and always lose resources- all matter is eventually turned into energy, and lost as waste heat.

I understand your argument, but Earth has never actually lost resources the way we're talking. You're using logic like this:

Mars needs nitrogen, so let's take it from Earth. Earth will be fine since it's all an ecosystem anyway.

ISS is proof that self sustaining is NOT neccessary- it's nice, it makes things safer, but it dosen't make or break us.

The ISS is a failure. And it is breaking us. Most of our budget is going into the ISS. A space station designed on obsolete technology.

And I certainly wouldn't call the ISS a colony. If anything it's a temporary habitat.

So us creating a gallon here can still cost more than a gallon there.

That's only because they have more there than we do here. But think about how ridiculous it is, to ship a fuel thousands of miles away when renewable fuel sources are within our technological reach? Also, think about the dependency we have on the middle east. And then tell me our inablity to survive without oil doesn't make it valuable to them.

You can't.

They need us to need them!

the fact that Mars is SO dependant on Earth means that Earth holds all the cards

You have not given enough evidence to prove that Mars needs to depend on Earth at all. All you have done is shown that it's a nations best interests to control their peoples. And you've also shown that Luna would be the best place to start.

This only makes Mars a more inticing place to colonize.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-04-18 11:18:54

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#27 2002-04-18 16:04:29

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#28 2002-04-19 06:37:29

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#29 2002-04-20 22:00:51

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#30 2002-04-23 08:14:56

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#31 2002-04-25 11:27:59

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#32 2002-04-29 10:58:36

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#33 2002-04-30 16:04:38

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#34 2002-04-30 19:46:49

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#35 2002-04-30 20:01:22

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#36 2002-04-30 20:18:30

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#37 2002-04-30 22:11:33

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#38 2002-04-30 22:42:08

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#39 2002-05-01 00:49:40

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#40 2002-05-01 07:38:04

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#41 2002-05-01 08:01:52

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#42 2002-05-01 13:06:40

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#43 2002-05-01 14:35:23

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#44 2002-05-02 15:14:22

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#45 2002-05-03 12:49:05

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

#46 2002-05-03 16:10:11

Re: KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments

Board footer