New Mars Forums

Hi Free Spirit!
    Thanks for the great wrap! Gosh, I wonder what your definition of a right wing fanatic actually is? I've got a feeling I wouldn't meet most people's criteria ... but maybe your threshold for 'right wing fanatic' is low enough that I might just squeeze through!!
                                      :laugh:

    Given the politics of his day, I feel it is difficult to classify Augustus Caesar as a fascist. Unless you simply toss all rulers of the ancient world into that category for the sake of convenience (?). Augustus was actually the epitome of the benign dictator; that extraordinarily rare kind of individual who remains uncorrupted by absolute power.
    I thought it would be fascinating to get a glimpse of what the Roman Empire looked like from inside, but I also wanted to speak with a man of such humanity that, though he held the power of life and death in his hands, he thought only of the good of the people he ruled.

    I confess a fascination with Adolf Hitler but not for the reasons you imply. I see him, in many ways, as an opposite to Augustus.
    It would be a surreal experience to gaze into the eyes of someone who has become for many the embodiment of evil. I happen to think that most of us are capable of terrible things and I think it's important we should examine evil and come to know it. If we don't, how will we recognise it if and when it appears in ourselves?
    To me, Hitler is the abyss. I want to look into that abyss and plumb its depths.

    I find it interesting that you overlooked the presence of Carl Sagan and John Lennon on my list; both renowned for their liberal and humanitarian outlook. Also, I don't think Jesus was famed for his fascist tendencies either!

    As for including Dr. Zubrin, he's the founder of The Mars Society and I'm a paid-up member of that organisation. Is it any surprise that I happen to agree with his views? Is it so remarkable that I'd be interested to speak with him?
    Just out of curiosity, are you a member of TMS?

    It looks to me like you've found what you thought looked like a good reason to pounce on me and give me a thoroughly good telling off for being a nazi!
                                             
    I guess it's part of human nature to fall into the trap of categorising people who don't agree with you on some things. The next step is to demonise them and vilify them, which comes easily once you have them categorised. The trouble is, when we really get to know them, most people just don't squeeze into those little boxes we make for them.
    I suspect, Free Spirit, that you and I aren't nearly as far apart on basic philosophy as you might think. We just see different solutions to the same problems, that's all.
                                                   

No problem.
    Install it in a corner of the police station car park. Automatic surveillance, 24/7/52.
                                                 

Ha ha !!
    Yeah, that's a good one!   

I've never been comfortable with the concept of tethers because I can't see how we will ever be able to coordinate the arrival of the 'skyhook' and the vehicle to be elevated to a higher orbit, in the same place at the same time! This sounds like such an exquisite orbital ballet I don't believe it will ever be practicable.
    In any event, the research and development, and gradual build-up of on-orbit experience required to master it, will delay its implementation for many years.
    In the meantime, I suspect development of the space elevator will move along faster than expected and will, by virtue of its cost saving and sheer elegance, become the logical method of choice for deep-space launches.
    Given the advances in nanotube production methods needed, I wouldn't be surprised if the first elevator 'ribbon' is in place by 2015. Its almost magical allure, a la 'Jack and the Beanstalk', should result in an acceleration of the technology and the deployment of more and stronger ribbons. Conceivably, there could be as many as a dozen heavy-duty elevator cables spaced out around the equator by 2030, giving unparalleled and routine access to space to people all over the world.
    Maybe tethers can be made to work but, for my money, space elevators should be given priority.
                                                       

As far as I know, the so-called 'climbers' will probably travel up the cable (or ribbon) at speeds in the hundreds of kilometres per hour. I've never heard of speeds higher than that being considered so I assume there must be some good reason why not - perhaps there is concern about wear and tear on the cable itself (?).
    Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) is about 36000 kms up so, if we assume a speed of 500 kilometres per hour, the ride will take 72 hours, or three days.
    But the climbers will eventually be large and well-appointed, with sleeping quarters, dining rooms, entertainment areas and observation deck(s). I imagine them as large luxurious railway cars, but elongated vertically rather than horizontally.
    Far from being a boring chore, riding one of these things up to GEO will be one of the most fascinating and exciting things anyone could ever do. Apart from the simply staggering view of Earth receding below us hour by hour, there will be the novelty of experiencing gradually reducing gravity. At the outset, of course, you will be at Earth's surface and subject to the usual 1g pull we're all used to. When you arrive at GEO, you will be in freefall and effectively weightless. At various points along the way, you will experience 0.5g (Sir Arthur Clarke has suggested a hospital platform at this level, where the reduced gravity may be beneficial for convalescence from certain illnesses), 0.38g or Martian gravity (another platform here may be useful for experiments to determine the long-term effects of living on Mars), and 0.16g or the equivalent of lunar gravity.

    [For those travelling on to Mars, the climber will have to be rotated as it passes beyond GEO. This is because the predominant force experienced by the passengers will, from there onwards, be centripetal force and they will feel 'gravity' pulling them upward away from Earth! The further along the cable they go, the more pronounced will be the centripetal force. At another platform, the passengers will get off, transfer to an Earth-Mars vehicle and get ready for a stomach-churning release from the cable, which will be reminiscent of the feeling you get when you jump off a diving board! In much the same way as when you twirl an object around on a string, and then let go, the Earth-Mars vehicle will fly off at a tangent (literally) for its coast to Mars.]

    So I don't think anyone will really mind this amazing journey into space, especially when you consider how much cheaper it will be and how it will open things up for the ordinary person who wants to experience space travel.
    Here in Australia, people get in their cars and drive for three or four days to get to vacation spots. In many ways, this is far more of an imposition than a space elevator ride, and far less of an adventure. And, eventually, statistics may show that a trip into space is actually far less hazardous than a driving vacation ... who knows?!
                                               

I wonder whether the sun getting cooler and apparently less active over the next century or so will result in fewer solar flares?
    If so, that would be a boon to human deep-space missions because of the lesser risk of harmful radiation. How fortuitous at this particular moment in time, as humanity contemplates sending colonists to Mars!
    Maybe there is a God, after all.
                                                 

I always think it's interesting to see how people's feelings, experiences, or prejudices colour their arguments. If we do that, it helps us understand where someone might be coming from and helps us see why they say the things they say.

    Josh is a self-declared anarchist (unless I've really got my wires crossed) and, presumably, dislikes or mistrusts large organisations, preferring us all to be individuals unbound by rules and regulations. Perhaps this is why he espouses individuality and freedom in all things(?), even to the point of opening up the practice of medicine to the masses.

    Cindy sees the detailed side of medicine every day and has a deep understanding of just how complicated it really is and, therefore, how easily things can go wrong.
    I've seen something of what she's seen and I have to say I agree with her.

    Clark is a dark horse, as always, in all this. We don't know much about him (assuming the male gender! ); we don't even know his age and he declares no personal interests in the profile section. Clearly privacy is very important.
    But we do know he's hurt by the way he's treated ("Somehow I'm being faulted for looking into what she talks about.").
    We can almost see the look of puzzlement and pain on his face as his innocent well-meaning comments and questions are twisted around by others and turned against him. ("But what the hell do I know.")
    But the look of pathos and incomprehension changes to one of grit and determination as his strength of character comes shining through ("As always, people make mistakes. I obviously made some by trying to meet half way. I see what that gets me. Simply incredible.")
    With that, the stricken hero turns and strides purposefully into the sunset, wearing his wounded pride like a newfound badge of honour.

    Ha ha !!   :laugh: 

    An absolutely brilliant display of B-grade movie material, Clark! If you tried that on here in Australia you'd never live it down; you'd be ragged and bagged forever more!!
                                                 

    Since you're obviously not unintelligent, I have to deduce you jest with us, my friend. At least ... I sincerely hope that's the case!
                                                       

Actually, Cindy, I thought that 'little jot' of yours was rather well put and did justice to the kinds of intricacies of medical practice a lot of people are most likely unaware of.
    Josh's 'dumbing down' of medical practice, while greatly increasing the number of practitioners, is certain to greatly decrease the standard of care. In fact, we'd soon see a renaissance of unrestrained 'quack' medicine with all its accompanying disasters. Even as it is, highly trained and diligent doctors make occasional mistakes, which these days lead to litigation and massive payouts. The public is almost conditioned now to expecting flawless work from their medical practitioners, even though these practitioners are only human. Imagine the uproar if and when half-trained doctors appeared on the scene, causing more damage than the diseases they were supposed to be treating! And Cindy's very descriptive post leaves us in little doubt these half-a**ed "doctors" would have enormous scope for causing unmitigated clinical catastrophes.
    I think there has to be a compromise somewhere, as Byron rightly suggests. Massive wealth accumulation by doctors and surgeons is probably a bad thing but, in a modern capitalist society where basketball and tennis players, rock singers and corporate executives get multi-million dollar salaries, it's difficult to point the finger at a person who has trained hard for many years and takes on the very grave responsibility of making life-and-death decisions every day. And, if we want the best people making these decisions about our lives, we need to make medicine an attractive proposition for our best and brightest. But then, we also want people who are attracted by the notion of helping the sick and saving lives, not just making big money.

    As I said, I don't know where the line should be drawn. It's a particularly thorny problem. But I think teaching populations that medicine somehow ought to be free is counterproductive because it produces unrealistic expectations.
    However I may come across with all this, in reality I applaud Clark, CC, and Josh for trying to suggest alternatives because, God knows, we need all the suggestions we can get! Sooner or later, with a little bit of goodwill and seeing-both-sides-of-the-argument, instead of unrelenting self-interest, we might just figure out a solution.
                                         

[Incidentally, Byron, in answer to your question, so many Australians were in private health schemes, the premiums were quite affordable. They paid their own premiums out of their own pockets at their local pharmacy (drug-store), which would act as agent for the health companies. If you tried to join a scheme whilst suffering some kind of ailment, the rules still allowed you to join but the pre-existing condition would not be eligible for cover for a fixed 'waiting period', though any new condition arising after enrolment would be covered. There were a number of such rules which protected health insurance companies from the type of person who might be tempted to wait until they were sick before joining a scheme temporarily.
    Once the universal scheme was introduced, many people stayed in private health cover out of a sense of independence and because they wanted to be able to choose their own specialist in the event of requiring surgery. But, of course, huge numbers of people abandoned the private companies, making them less viable. They were left with a core of clients too sick to want to leave the safety of private health, but had lost most of the younger healthier clientele who helped keep premiums low. So premiums went up and more people left!
    The present government is trying to encourage people back into private health insurance by giving us a 30% rebate on the cost of premiums if we join a private scheme.
    In case you're wondering, the Barrett family always puts its money where its mouth is and we have been private health insurance members throughout the Medicare era. This means we have paid the extra Medicare tax (compulsory) each year plus the ever increasing private premiums. I would not, in good conscience, feel able to criticise public health schemes if I had taken advantage of one of them for years and then turned against it when it was down. In addition, I could see it was a flawed piece of political doctrine, ruining a very good extant system and doomed to extinction, and in principle I wanted as little to do with it as possible.]

Sorry Byron!
    I started to answer your question about the Australian health system days ago but got side-tracked and completely forgot to go back to it. My apologies!
    I know I come across as pretty right wing but that's largely a visceral response to left-wing ideology, which I understand and sympathise with on one level but which I find an essentially bankrupt ideology on another level. And I've met too many 'champagne socialists' who are doing very nicely themselves but want other people to be altruistic and work for nothing for the good of the common man - something they themselves wouldn't think of doing in a pink fit!
    This latter 'type' of person is amply represented by the Australian Labor Party (ALP), which once represented the working person but has since decayed into a caricature of its former self in the face of widespread prosperity in recent years.

    I regard myself as first and foremost a practical man with a very healthy disdain for fanciful bull**** and political dogma, especially from the left.
    I wasn't trying to imply that I have a solution to this problem because I don't believe there is one! Australia is currently facing up to the fact that doctors don't want to work for nothing, however philanthropic they may be or however much the 'champagne socialists' (with deep pockets and short arms) think they ought to be!
    As far as I can tell, we're trying to rebuild the situation that existed before, wherein almost all Australians had private health insurance and Medicare was there for those who really couldn't cope. That system worked remarkably well and everyone had access to reasonably good health care. The universal health scheme, Medicare, was introduced by the ALP for ideological reasons rather than because of any pressing need; an attempt at collectivisation of Australian health.
    The old system wasn't perfect, I grant you that, but it was probably one of the better systems in existence worldwide at the time, and definitely more sustainable than the mess we're having to clean up now.

    Who knows what the ideal system is?! One in which saintly people study hard for many years just so they can go out and heal the sick for no pay while their families live in a state of almost religious poverty. Maybe that's the answer.
    Maybe 'creating' hundreds of thousands of doctors, as Josh suggests, is the way to go. So that each village has an abundance of medical practitioners - one every second house. Although I confess I don't understand the logic in this argument at all, unless he is talking about centralised control of the populace a la Fidel Castro (?).

    All I know for sure is that universal health care is an illusion. There'll always be antagonism between the state and the providers of the care because their agendas are always going to be diametrically opposed.
    I truly wish everyone everywhere could have unlimited and cost-free access to the best physicians and medical specialists ... but sooner or later, someone somewhere has to pay the piper. No amount of political ideology will get around that fact.
                                               ???

Makes as much sense as anything else I've read about terraforming Mercury!
                                          :;):

Thanks for the reply, Pat!
    Nice of you to visit the recesses of what passes for my 'mind' and good of you to take the trouble to attempt to relieve my confusion.
    I admit that step 2 is the weak point in the sequence and, to be honest, I knew my semi-humorous assessment of how photons work wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny. If there were really a glaring fault in the logic, I'm aware somebody would have noticed it before now!

    Your explanation(s) are well thought out and I'm happy to accept them ... or at least as happy as I am to accept explanations for anything this hard to visualise!!
    In as much as some philosophers have argued that our thoughts are defined, and limited, by our language, I believe many of the concepts of modern physics cannot be fully grasped by anyone with less than a thorough understanding of higher mathematics. i.e. It takes someone who 'speaks mathematics' as the rest of us speak our mother tongue.
    Those of us with little more than highschool mathematics are left to do the best we can with the tools we have. But still, I love to think about it all!
    Cheers Pat!!
                                                 

Unfortunately, I think the answer to your question: "Is this alive?" has to be that there's no compelling reason to say yes.
    I've looked at all the pictures and alternative, simpler, and more mundane geological explanations are more likely.

    Section XVI was the one that lent itself most effectively to the notion that we're looking at herds of enormous animals, disporting themselves in the sand. But, again, there's really nothing to suggest the purported 'beasties' are not simply eroded craters full of sand dunes.

    I truly hate to rain on other people's parades but we have to apply strict standards of evidence to this sort of thing, and your pictures simply don't pass the test. In fact, it would take enormously detailed orbital images showing completely enequivocal evidence before people would change their minds about Mars.
    So far, I've seen nothing which constitutes incontrovertible proof of macroscopic Martian life-forms.
    Sorry!