New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#51 2002-07-25 10:29:20

Bill White
Member
Registered: 2001-09-09
Posts: 2,114

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

And sometimes I wonder if it wasn't easier for the US gov't to drop a bomb on the Japanese because they were so different in physical appearance to the people in power in Washington, D.C. at the time [all Caucasian...I'm Caucasian too, btw], and if it would've been harder for those same politicians in D.C. to drop a bomb on the Germans because of heritage ties and their also being white.  Maybe I'm way off base on this one, but I've wondered it.

This risks getting way off thread - but here goes. . .

I understand your point, Cindy, however IMHO those of us living today cannot comprehend how close the Axis came to actually winning WW2.

Winning at Midway was NOT inevitable and the Japanese had "hit below the belt" for decades - Nanking, Pearl Harbor, Bataan etc. . .  Reading about Nanking and the treatment of the Koreans - I sometimes want to re-nuke those Japanese who today seek to cleanse their history books.

We USians at least can debate the morality of the A-bomb in public while public discussion of Nanking remains much frowned upon in Japan.

As for Nazi Germany, what the RAF did to Dresden was far worse than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Personally, I have little doubt we would have nuked Berlin if the bomb was ready in time - but that is merely my personal sense. IMHO, the men who liberated Dachau would have dropped the bomb on the Germans in a heartbeat.

Also, perhaps a measure of "remorse" over Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Dresden, a sense that the Japanese and the German populations had been fully "paid back in kind" made it easier for the US to fund the Marshall Plan in Europe and comparable efforts in Japan.

In 1945 - 1946 Americans could legitimately feel a great deal of anger over the far, far worse conduct of the war by the Axis. Our ability to "let go" of that anger and spend US money to re-build Japan and West Germany into democratic and peaceable nations was one of the greatest foreign policy triumphs in the history of humanity.

Perhaps the "excess" at Hiroshima - if there was any excess at all - made that easier for us to do.

Offline

#52 2002-07-25 17:53:30

Phobos
Member
Registered: 2002-01-02
Posts: 1,103

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

I read, a long time ago, _Hiroshima_.  It was so difficult to read.  I do have a problem with our gov't having dropped those bombs on cities essentially [at the time] inhabited basically only by elderly people, little children, and women.  That was, IMO, below the belt of the US gov't; if we were going to strike Japan with a nuclear weapon, why wasn't it Tokyo, their military headquarters?

Yeah, dropping the bomb was probably below the belt if, as some evidence suggests, the Japanese were getting ready to surrender anyway, but honestly, I think a lot more Japanese would have died if we had to make frontal assaults on the main Japanese island itself.   The Japanese were intending to arm as much of the populace as possible with the idea that all of Japan would fight until no Japanese were left standing.  Of course I could be wrong, Japan might have just threw its arms up and said I give up after a short battle and saved more lives, but knowing how nationalistic the Japanese were at that time, I doubt it.   The fire bombing of Dresden and some Japanese cities is another highly controversial action that smacks of terrorism.  There's something evil about those little bomblets that shot out jets of fire that were like 10 feet long to burn down highly flammable Japanese dwellings.   But then again, the Japanese would have nuked us back into the stone age if they had the chance.  Just look at how they treated Chinese civilians for instance.  Hardly admirable.

And sometimes I wonder if it wasn't easier for the US gov't to drop a bomb on the Japanese because they were so different in physical appearance to the people in power in Washington, D.C. at the time [all Caucasian...I'm Caucasian too, btw], and if it would've been harder for those same politicians in D.C. to drop a bomb on the Germans because of heritage ties and their also being white.  Maybe I'm way off base on this one, but I've wondered it.

Racism might have played a part, but I'm sure the gov't would have had no problem nuking Berlin into a radioactive slag heap as Byron put it had Germany not already been defeated.  After all the firebombings against German cities killed more people than did the nuke bombs.


To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd

Offline

#53 2002-07-29 13:39:07

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,278

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

I always find it amazing the human minds ability to so rationalize the act of murder, in any form.

Here we have several different viewpoints, all conveying the same message, or portraying the legitmacy of the acts as at least understandable given the circumstances. While I myself agree with the rationale, I can't help but be bothered by the act of rationalizing an immoral act.

Murder is wrong in any form, the taking of another life is exactly that. Self defense rhetoric aside, that is a justification of an act- it's one of those squimish gray areas used to avoid the moral certainty imposed by respecting the sacntity of life, i.e the death penalty as a form of retribution: we must protect everyone from the possibility of any further damage from one individual. This rationale is effectively translated into international relations between self-identifying groups, i.e. we must protect democracy from the possibility of any further famage from one group, or one individual, like a terroist, etc.

The problem is only further exsaperated by how individuals, or even groups of individuals will derive their rationale or justification for the act of murder. Many of them are quite rational, quite justified, in fact, I for one could name a long list of people who should be killed, or deserved to die. Each and everyone of you who reads these words can no doubt do the same. Are all of our reasons justified? To us personaly, I'm sure- however, I am sure there would  be many names we would start to disagree on. Who is right? How do we know?

I've asked that question before, and I still haven't gotten an answer. I'm not surprised though, since in all of recorded human history, no one has figured it out- everyone is still busy fighting over who is right, and wether or not everyone else should listen.

Talk glibly, as I do, about the "slagging" of an entire people, but see it for what it is and was. It was a calculated act predicated on murder to achieve a required goal.

Did it [dropping the bomb] save lives, yes,  certain ones, namely, American ones.
Did it save Japanes lives? No. It simply wiped them out. Poof. 100,000 people dead.

100,000 grandparents, wives, children. A hundred thousand you and me's with all of their own hopes and dreams, lifes, hates, loves, fears, laughter, tears...

Would more lives have been lost through direct invasion, probably. But then the people who died would have made that choice to resist, which is arguably a justified act- self defense. Would more americans have died... of course, that's why the bomb was dropped.

We justified the act to save american lives that would have to die in order to obtain a goal.

Apparently the ends can justify the means.

Which makes me wonder why some still believe that morality and ethics can ever be absolute.  ???

Offline

#54 2021-07-24 06:56:50

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 885

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

Sometime in the future Mars could be a Sincity tourist site but for now I say NO ! Yet in times of War sometimes 'Stims' were used to keep a Captain sailing to help the pilot fly longer hours, tea and coffee are drugs after all...there is talk of religion on Mars yet what of Taboos in Religious Practices?

I would make it difficult, tax the heck out of it, regulate it, if a colony is at risk maybe ban it martial law style
The First Opium War an interesting read, cultures destroyed by drugs, maybe it could be seen as a larger historical and political play of British vs Chinese. India and Hinduism goes back long before this event, sometimes they have an open use culture, the world known musicians and band Beatles went there to smoke something, Hinduism has a history of psychedelic usage going back to the Vedic period. Some religion see drug as taboo, a danger to the body, Jesus did however drink wine and others like Simple Native culture or the Rasta can see a drug as sacred gift, if Mars is to be invaded by politics, drugs, crime and other religion culture some religions encourages members to abstain from drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. In the West there is a more modern movement to liberate drug use again, some kind of product where a government can collect more tax from the drunk and stoned high users?

Alcohol is an addiction, it can do damage like sugars like tobaco
As for even the soft drugs...
Cannabis abuse linked to higher risk of schizophrenia: study
https://nypost.com/2021/07/22/cannabis- … nia-study/

The marijuana aint the super cure, Weed-induced psychosis?
Mars one of the few places not invaded by Drug dealers and the ginat Merchants of Class A Drugs

Offline

#55 2021-07-31 23:34:56

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,278

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

Pretty sure people will find a way to cut loose. I think the focus should be on how to mitigate potential large scale system or process breakdowns when someone is of unsound mind in a glorified pressurized bomb.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/scientist … aybe-much/

Offline

#56 2021-08-01 08:19:12

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,078

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

The topic has now been fixed of the conversion artifacts causing collapsing and shifting.

many things have come and gone from there initial they are bad to ok for medical but now seem we are going to need to control them once more...

Offline

#57 2021-08-01 17:14:45

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,859

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

Drugs of various types including alcohol have been a huge part of human biological and cultural evolution. Most humans are highly evolved to tolerate alcohol for instance.

Drugs and alcohol seem to have a very strong connection with creativity in the arts and even with science to perhaps a smaller extent.

How a human society on Mars copes with this issue will be fascinating to see.

I think there is a strong likelihood that a puritanical approach will dominate at the outset (although nearly all the lunar astronauts were big drinkers back on Earth, I don't think the Apollo Missions saw any substance use - apart from authorised psychoactive medication of course).
However as the specification for Mars residency becomes less demanding I am sure we will see people getting to Mars who want to grow marijuana, or foment alcohol.

Maybe on Mars there is an argument for having regular festivals where people adopt a Bacchanalian approach but one bounded by safety considerations given the risks of living in a pressurised environment.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#58 2021-08-01 17:33:15

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,305

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

CSPAN offers a video interview with the author of a new book: "Drunk"

It is a serious study of the importance if inebriation to the smooth functioning of society for thousands of years.

There is an argument advanced in the book that the desire for alcohol led to settling down to raise grain, after thousands of years as hunter/gatherers, rather than the commonly accepted hypothesis that grain came first.

The author argues at great length that social inebriation has been codified for thousands of years, and that societies that forego alcohol must develop similar mechanisms for reducing normal human distrust.

Hardcover Drunk : How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization Book
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Share to Twitter

ISBN: 0316453382

ISBN13: 9780316453387
Drunk : How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization
by Edward Slingerland
Empty Star

(th)

Offline

#59 2021-08-02 06:30:05

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,859

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

Yes, I read a review of that book.  Interesting stuff. It's also worth noting that lots of animals enjoy getting drunk on fomented fruit - which is certainly a good way of piling in the calories, that then get you through lean periods.



tahanson43206 wrote:

CSPAN offers a video interview with the author of a new book: "Drunk"

It is a serious study of the importance if inebriation to the smooth functioning of society for thousands of years.

There is an argument advanced in the book that the desire for alcohol led to settling down to raise grain, after thousands of years as hunter/gatherers, rather than the commonly accepted hypothesis that grain came first.

The author argues at great length that social inebriation has been codified for thousands of years, and that societies that forego alcohol must develop similar mechanisms for reducing normal human distrust.

Hardcover Drunk : How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization Book
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Share to Twitter

ISBN: 0316453382

ISBN13: 9780316453387
Drunk : How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization
by Edward Slingerland
Empty Star

(th)


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB