Anarchism - Anything goes

Rxke · 2006-01-05 03:59:27

current research suggests that, too, is "right around the corner". Feasibility studies show that 'primitive' carbon-based nanomanufacturing seems increasingly probable within five to ten years, and when that happens, chips will only cost the price of foodstock and energy, i.e. less than pennies for staggering computing power.

GPL versions of chips will make them free as in speech, there are already designs of 8-bit processors freely available, and any device could have literally millions of them inside, giving you truly supercomputer powers on a laptop.

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-05 20:47:34

But as we have discovered human consumerism and call it keeping up with the joneses tends to make people not just buy items due to need. More often than not we will see that people will buy items for there current fashionability rather than just to replace worn items.

Consumerism does follow trends in technological advancement, but there has to be an upper level where human perception and ability simply cannot handle it. Imagine a 3D gaming device that can recreate 'reality' at the resolution of the human eye. We're about 2 to 3 (console) generations away from that already.

But, I'm not arguing for that, it's not a prerequsite. On Mars the conditions will be far different than Earth. People won't take anything for granted. There's always the famous "toilet paper" argument, that Martians would have to ship toilet paper in because they can't grow it or whatever, when they don't even use toilet paper on the ISS. The culture will be different. A colony of a few thousand will not be really focusing on "advancing technology," they won't need their music players to be able to store another hundred thousand hours of songs (current MP3 players are already breaking the human perception barrier, with several weeks worth of playtime that no human would ever actually sit through). They won't need X more resolution in their monitors (we've already met the resolution of human perception, simply expand that to 3D glasses or contacts and you have achieved the barrier).

So what if they're "roughing it" with technology that is 'dated' by Earth standards? If they are using technologies that satisify their needs to their limit, then why would they need more? There will of course be companies on Earth who try to break the barrier, try to sell something that simply isn't needed, "Console X can do 10x as many polygons as the previous generation, don't worry about the fact that you cannot percieve it!"

These will still have to be bought especially and as they are hyper complicated will cost. I am not talking simple items like furniture but the more complicated items like electronics will always be advancing fast.

There has to be a limit here. In 20 years we will have reached it almost assuredly. A more optimistic estimate is 10 to 15 years. Even then, consider living in a society where everything is freely provided, however, the technology is all open and all the designs are freely desimated. Consider then the people, guys like me, or maybe even like you, who spend their spare time working on ways of making new technologies or old technologies better. With free tools at their disposal, many a technician could do this in their free time, and perhaps achieve better designs due to the fact that they wouldn't be limited to architecture. The PC architecture is almost 3 decades old, and yet it still is extended, while people on Earth will be playing around with extending old technologies (because it's profitable to extend technology rather than throwing out your market), Martians or others on Earth will be looking at ways to advance the physical aspects of chips, creating whole new architectures that may not even need some of the cludgy workarounds that current chips have (I know this all too well, having a 3.0 P4 laptop which is outperformed by my Athlon desktop by many margins).

But consumers would still be happy with what they got. Look at the iPod Video. Archos created a multimedia player long before Apple even thought of the iPod video, it can play movies, music, and has a larger capacity than the iPod. Yet the iPod Video outsells it because of Apple's marketing. It has a significantly smaller screen, it cannot play the vast majority of files that the Archos player can (they must be converted, which is time consuming). The resolution is ridiculous, the list goes on and on. For all intents and purposes the iPod Video (and iPod photo for that matter) is a joke, yet it still sells. Consider then the 'marketing' that would exist in this free society. It would work similarly to how Archos vs iPod work. People might hear of news on the interplanetary net that a new MP3 player is out that can hold all music ever created, yet on Mars we have an MP3 player that can play only maybe half of all music ever created. If we're inundated with lots of intersocietal marketing the people simply won't care.

Advanced electronics need extremely specialised conditions to be able to be manufactured. It is highly unlikely that this will ever be able to be designed to be made by what will in short be 3D printers without really complicated Nano tech devices.

As long as we have the ability to refine and make things bigger and smaller, then we have the ability to create practically anything. Granted, one small replicator probably couldn't spit out anything without nanotechnology (which is a technology I'm somewhat dubious of, which I'll explain to Rxke mommentarily). But you could have the replicator build a complex or something that could build these things. Say you have an original, throw in some specifications for a more advanced type of machine, and it would spit out parts (and possibly assemble them) until it has built a small facility capable of making the more advanced pieces. An original replicator might be the size of a van, capable of rudimentary functions like creating 120nm chips that might run a little hot or whatever, but it could build another replicator with more advanced approaches that could result in 90nm technology. But we really actually don't know how this technology would work, which is the purpose of the RepRap project (it's not actually meant to create replicators, because part of the process requires parts that you have to get elsewhere, but it's a start into figuring out the geometries required to manage to make any geometry).

Another point with manufacturing so easy by machine then what about the traditional crafts. It is likely that they would then gain a premium just for the moniker "Hand made".

Which is a good thing! Think about it. How many people make hand made crafts this day and age? Few people work outside of the industrial complex. A society where "necessities" or other advanced technologies can be easily created and copied would result in people actually living, rather than working for a machine.

Rxke, have any links on these nanomanufacturing technologies? Most things I read about seem to be relatively simple experiments in a lab somewhere, nothing really production quality, or even plausibly production quality, in my opinion. When Drexler first wrote about nanotechnology I found that his ideas were too optimistic, and that nanotechnology is more about biology than it is about technology. Carbon life forms are the only entities that we know of which can manipulate themselves and their environment with a preset programming language (DNA, RNA, etc). And they don't do very well manipulating metals or other things that our industrial lifestyle requires (and that would be even more required on Mars). I personally have the very strong belief that life-altering nanotech (don't confuse this with biotech which could cure disease and stuff) is a pipedream. But again, it's an opinion. I would really appreciate some links of mass manufacturing on the nano scale.

Rxke · 2006-01-06 02:46:05

re: nanomanufacturing.

The 'best' site is down, I bet Chris Phoenix was a tad too enthousiastic with experimenting on the underlying wiki-engine, but it should be back up in a couple of days
http://wise-nano.org/w/Main_Page esp. his paper concerning a 'primitive nanofactory' using diamontoid lattices (Carbon structures in other words) is lenghty but interesting.) and available here: http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm
He's currently working under a grant from NIAC, I guess we'll hear more reports soon.

I would really appreciate some links of mass manufacturing on the nano scale.

Wouldn't we all, I initially thought, but..

This guys "leftfield" idea http://www.physorg.com/news9537.html sounds promising, eh?

End of the article says : so far only theory... Darn.

But... You want something similar, demonstrated? Say, mass produced predetermined molecular patterns, able to function as building-blocks? http://www.physorg.com/news9322.html

and this, http://www.nano.pitt.edu/event.html#Pitt_prize

etc. These are so-called enabling technologies, so not the real thing, but it's going fast.

(Edit:) I'll copy this to the nano-thread http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4113 before going too much off-topic... There, I did some edits of this post)

Martin_Tristar · 2006-01-26 01:43:16

Many other forms of government could exist on Mars , from imperialism with a self-claimed royals (Princes / Kings ? Dukes ) to Corporate Governors that are controlled from a board of a corporation.

You need to remember that space doesn't stop people taking reseources and control over different cities / outposts / settlements / colonies by force of arms. It depends on the backup from earth or other nearby resources. What we bring to space including robotics could be used for war as well. The Justice , legal and legislative structures and the interaction with Earth all plays a part in the development and also the reduction of risks in the formation of goverment on Mars or any other body in our solar system.

Grypd · 2006-01-26 12:39:11

I agree that advanced production techniques does not stop any form of goverment but it is a prequisite for an anarchist form of literaly anti-goverment.

But anarchistic style of goverment on Mars is I believe not going to happen. Mars is a place where Organisation is essential for survival and that reguires goverment. It does not matter if its Dictatorial or Corporate it is essential that when the worst happens there is something there to deal with it.

Anarchism relies on people doing things out of the public good when dealing with these big situations. Unfortunatly human nature is not good.

clark · 2006-01-30 15:33:23

government is the submission of the individual to the savagery of the group in exchange for protection from the savagery of the individual.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-24 12:46:32

I agree that advanced production techniques does not stop any form of goverment but it is a prequisite for an anarchist form of literaly anti-goverment.
But anarchistic style of goverment on Mars is I believe not going to happen. Mars is a place where Organisation is essential for survival and that reguires goverment. It does not matter if its Dictatorial or Corporate it is essential that when the worst happens there is something there to deal with it.
Anarchism relies on people doing things out of the public good when dealing with these big situations. Unfortunatly human nature is not good.

Anarchy is total chaos, lack of control, panic, everybody attacking everybody. How would you like to land on a planet with a constant brawl going on between all its occupants?

You start out by sending a mission where no one is in charge, and all the occupants of the spaceship are trying to beat the crap out of one another, and they do this all the way to Mars according to anarchic principles.

When they land on Mars, they start throwing Martian rocks each other, throwing punches and bashing each other on the head with scientific instruments. Total anarchy, the problem with anarchy is keeping the anarchy going. It is human nature to want order, and order is the enemy of anyone who whats chaos and confusion. The toughest part for any anarchist is to keep the brawl going, and to avoid the tendency of one side or another to win and establish his order over others.

Anarchy is an unnatural state for humans, most of them tire of the conflict after a while, and if you want to govern Mars this way, you'll have alot of trouble.

Eigon · 2006-11-24 13:28:22

Anarchy does not necessarily mean violence.

Anarchy means that no one is in charge.

A good example of this is the world postal service. There is no office, or group of people, who control international postal services. Instead, agreements are made between individual national postal systems - and the mail gets through, without anyone being in charge.

Grypd · 2006-11-25 05:41:09

Anarchy does not necessarily mean violence.
Anarchy means that no one is in charge.
A good example of this is the world postal service. There is no office, or group of people, who control international postal services. Instead, agreements are made between individual national postal systems - and the mail gets through, without anyone being in charge.

But the International postal service is the creation of goverments and there agreements. Most if not all postal services where created by the goverment to provide a badly needed service and often one of national strategic necessity.

This has been expanded by various treaties but the core of it is the national postal services which are lead by directors,postmaster Generals call them what you will.

So Anarchy is something that cannot be atrributed to the postal service it is actually a state controlled engine of mass communication.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-25 10:01:28

Let me put it to you this way. Would you want to launch a manned space mission with no one in charge. Forget about a Manned Mission to Mars. How about we just launch the Space Shuttle with seven people onboard and no one in charge, they aren't given any mission directives, and each one can do whatever he or she wants. Preprogram the shuttle to renderous with the International Space Station, and see what happens. Do you want your tax dollars paying for such a mission. What if the astronauts do nothing but acrobatics, have fights over who gets to wear the space suit. How about people wresteling in zero-gee bouncing off walls for the entire mission, and then they have disagreements about when to land the shuttle and where? If you can't have a space mission without anyone in charge, then how can you have a space colony?

Eigon · 2006-11-25 16:17:31

Except that presumably these are seven responsible adults, who all want to go on a mission.
Is it really so difficult for seven people to agree together what they are going to do?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-26 08:16:35

Except that presumably these are seven responsible adults, who all want to go on a mission.
Is it really so difficult for seven people to agree together what they are going to do?

It is not easy, and the difficulty increases with incresing numbers. If seven people have different ideas, and will not submit to a majority vote to settle the matter, what we have then in anarchy. It is no accident that every ship has a captain who makes all the executive decisions regarding the ship or delegates them accordingly. If you just had a crew and no superior or inferior officers, the ship would be in trouble as it requires the coordinated effort of the entire crew in order to get some where and stay out of trouble. In war when you have an army against an equally well armed mob, usually its the army following the strategy of a competant general that usually wins the conflict.

A colony on Mars is a dangerous place, the life support system must be properly maintained, food must be grown to feed the population and a whole host of other things must be taken care of, in other words a colony requires leadership and somebody who's responsible for making decisions in order to survive.

Grypd · 2006-11-26 10:53:14

Except that presumably these are seven responsible adults, who all want to go on a mission.
Is it really so difficult for seven people to agree together what they are going to do?

The problem is not that of 7 people agreeing a decision it is when it comes to 100 or 1000 or 10 thousand.

Eigon · 2006-11-26 13:10:47

I ask these questions because I have some experience of what it is like to live in an anarchist community. My brother-in-law has been living in the oldest and largest anarcho-syndicalist commune in Germany for seven or eight years now. No-one is in charge, yet they get along just fine with no designated leaders.
There is a constitution, which was agreed by all the members (around 70 adults and 20 to 30 children), and they have a weekly meeting with a rotating chair - each person in the community takes it in turn to chair the meeting. They are well-organised, and they co-operate.

So it really does work in practice.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-26 23:46:01

But is it really anarchy. Anarchy is suppose to be the opposite of order.

Eigon · 2006-11-27 13:22:11

"The opposite of order" is one definition of anarchy, but it hasn't got much to do with the Anarchist movement in Europe (there's even an Anarchist Party that puts people up for election - and sometimes they win).

Ursula le Guin wrote a very fine novel, The Dispossessed, set partly in an anarchist society, and partly in the world they had left behind, which gives more of an idea of what the Neiderkaufungen people are aiming for (and possibly what Kim Stanley Robinson was thinking of when he wrote about the communities Coyote was visiting in his Mars trilogy).

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-28 09:07:59

"The opposite of order" is one definition of anarchy, but it hasn't got much to do with the Anarchist movement in Europe (there's even an Anarchist Party that puts people up for election - and sometimes they win).
Ursula le Guin wrote a very fine novel, The Dispossessed, set partly in an anarchist society, and partly in the world they had left behind, which gives more of an idea of what the Neiderkaufungen people are aiming for (and possibly what Kim Stanley Robinson was thinking of when he wrote about the communities Coyote was visiting in his Mars trilogy).

Notice that this is all fiction. The real life anarchist that comes to my mind is the one who assassinated Czar Alexander of Russia. Czar Alexander was a reformer, he wanted to make Russia a Constitutional Monarchy, and transfer more power to the people, and in the midst of making that reform, he was cut down by anarchists, and his son Czar Nicolaus II held on to power all the more tightly and believed in the divine right of kings all the more so because of that act of assassination by the anarchist, thus paving the way for the Boshevik Revolution. Some anarchists acted in that, they got their precious anarchy - meaning the absense of order, but chaos proved to be not so popular with the Russian People and so many supported the Bolsheviks and they got the upper hand and imposed their own order on society which intailed the loss of individual freedoms. It would have been much better had Czar Alexander been allowed to finish his program, at least the outcome would have been more predicatble than fomenting chaos and seeing which group of strongarms rose to the top to establish their own order.

Most would be oppressors value chaos when they are not in power, because of the opportunities such chaos provides them to topple governments and establish their own. Hitler was an anarchist at one time, he provoked public disorder and it served him well.

Palomar · 2006-11-28 09:46:10

Oh yeah, anarchy works.

In individual daydreams.

Being at a 4-way intersection with traffic lights out of order and drivers left to decide who goes next is a REAL good example of how anarchy wouldn't work on a scale of more than 1 human per planet.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-28 11:37:32

That's kind of the point, there is chaos and confusion and an anarchist would soak it all right in.

Palomar · 2006-11-28 11:41:45

That's kind of the point, there is chaos and confusion and an anarchist would soak it all right in.

...and ultimately be destroyed right along with everyone else.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-28 13:46:25

That's kind of the point, there is chaos and confusion and an anarchist would soak it all right in.
...and ultimately be destroyed right along with everyone else.

I didn't say they were smart.

I read about anarchists assassinating people in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Apparently all they wanted to do was create chaos and confusion, they felt that their world was too ordered and so they disordered it.

Anarchists paved the way for the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia by assassinating Czar Alexander.

The thing is, anarchists pretend that anarchy is a great thing. They don't understand or pretent not to understand why some or most people would abhor anarchy and the accompanying violence that goes with it. They will say they didn't not intend for the Communist revolution and that they only wanted the anarchy that preceeded it. They overthrew the Czar because he was too orderly, they wanted some chaos, and then the Bolsheviks "ruined everything" and established their own order based on Karl Marx. They don't understand why the Russian people would not like chaos and disorder. "Why not just settle for the overthrow of the Czar and leave it at that?" they say.

What they don't undertand is that something always fills a power vacuum, and when you promote anarchy, you are creating a power vacuum without deciding on what fills it.

Eigon · 2006-11-28 15:37:37

I mentioned the fiction because it's easier to pick up a book to find out how a society works than it is to spend time on an anarcho-syndicalist commune in Germany, and because I don't know much about the Anarchist political party beyond the fact that it exists.

My point stands, though. Here is one community which has been successfully running for over thirty years, and they manage to run a community with associated farm successfully without leaders or violence. My brother-in-law spent six months a couple of years ago travelling around Europe to visit other, similar communes, so there are quite a few out there, quietly getting on with it.

Eigon · 2006-11-28 15:40:13

I do take the point about the traffic intersection, though.

idiom · 2006-11-29 00:50:15

Being at a 4-way intersection with traffic lights out of order and drivers left to decide who goes next is a REAL good example of how anarchy wouldn't work on a scale of more than 1 human per planet.

Well, not quite. I have found I and all other drivers around me manage to navigate malfunctioning intersections quite well.

In broader experiments with removing traffic lights, society seems to run smoother.

There used to be a road death every three years but there have been none since the traffic light removal started seven years ago.
There have been a few small collisions, but these are almost to be encouraged, Mr Monderman explained. "We want small accidents, in order to prevent serious ones in which people get hurt," he said yesterday.
"It works well because it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want. But it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … ffic04.xml

Eigon · 2006-11-29 14:19:51

That's a good point, about individuals taking responsibility for their own actions.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-01-05 03:59:27

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#27 2006-01-05 20:47:34

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#28 2006-01-06 02:46:05

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#29 2006-01-26 01:43:16

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#30 2006-01-26 12:39:11

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#31 2006-01-30 15:33:23

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#32 2006-11-24 12:46:32

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#33 2006-11-24 13:28:22

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#34 2006-11-25 05:41:09

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#35 2006-11-25 10:01:28

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#36 2006-11-25 16:17:31

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#37 2006-11-26 08:16:35

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#38 2006-11-26 10:53:14

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#39 2006-11-26 13:10:47

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#40 2006-11-26 23:46:01

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#41 2006-11-27 13:22:11

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#42 2006-11-28 09:07:59

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#43 2006-11-28 09:46:10

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#44 2006-11-28 11:37:32

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#45 2006-11-28 11:41:45

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#46 2006-11-28 13:46:25

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#47 2006-11-28 15:37:37

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#48 2006-11-28 15:40:13

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#49 2006-11-29 00:50:15

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

#50 2006-11-29 14:19:51

Re: Anarchism - Anything goes

Board footer