> From: Douglas May
> If it is a free and open settlement, it is inevitable that
> there will
> be abortionists and antiabortionists on board. There will be
> gays and
> antigays. There will be smokers and antismokers, and so on.
first colony no doubt, but if we build hundreds or thousands of them and
allow them free reign, then eventually some are going to try some odd
things. Slavery as a penal system for example. cheaper than prisons and more
ethical than spacing people. Can't say fairer than that, right?
> Even if a settlement is peopled only by like-minded individuals who
> all agree, it is inevitable that in future generations dissenters
> will arise. How far will the settlement go to force their
> children to bend to their will.
In a zero growth population system, the children will likely inherate from
their parents their home, wealth, and right to live in that colony. If they
wish to leave that right to live there could be sold on the open market just
like the house. Though such movement might make concentrate political
opinions and make scenarios like the above more likely.
John
your assuming that ppl will be given the right to leave. there are
many ways to stop ppl who dont want to live under the goverment that
wants them there. one example is that they would be required to pay
the goverment for the cost of bringing in someone to do their job
before they left. since the station has a zero population ballance.
the new person cant come in until someone leaves. since the person
cant leave until his replacement is there and trained, he cat leave.
it would be by the law and legal, but it would block any hope of
anyone leaving. everyone would have the right to leave, but only if
they followed a law that could not be followed.
wrote:
>
> > From: Douglas May
> > If it is a free and open settlement, it is inevitable that
> > there will
> > be abortionists and antiabortionists on board. There will be
> > gays and
> > antigays. There will be smokers and antismokers, and so on.
>
> In more extreme cases there will be slavers and anti-slavers. Not
in the
> first colony no doubt, but if we build hundreds or thousands of
them and
> allow them free reign, then eventually some are going to try some
odd
> things. Slavery as a penal system for example. cheaper than prisons
and more
> ethical than spacing people. Can't say fairer than that, right?
>
> > Even if a settlement is peopled only by like-minded individuals
who
> > all agree, it is inevitable that in future generations dissenters
> > will arise. How far will the settlement go to force their
> > children to bend to their will.
>
> In a zero growth population system, the children will likely
inherate from
> their parents their home, wealth, and right to live in that colony.
If they
> wish to leave that right to live there could be sold on the open
market just
> like the house. Though such movement might make concentrate
political
> opinions and make scenarios like the above more likely.
>
> John
>
address from your Internet provider.
Hi Robert:
I dissagree with that point. I believe, space settlements will be
made not by a single station but by dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of
cities and towns of all sizes and populations.
Those settlements will have to be flexible to allow population
growth, new developments, spliting in two cities, getting rid of all
technologies, etc. Settlements will be more like today's cities than
a giant ship, because they will have to change and adapt continuosly.
I don't believe it will be possible an exponential population growth
but perhaps a 20% increase in population every twenty years could be
achievable.
> the new person cant come in until someone leaves. since the
>person
> cant leave until his replacement is there and trained, he cat
>leave.
> it would be by the law and legal, but it would block any hope of
> anyone leaving. everyone would have the right to leave, but only
>if
> they followed a law that could not be followed.
If settlements have population growth, some people leaving now and
then won't make any difference at all. In the other hand, I believe
immigration may be forbidden. Why? Because small comunities tend to
live for themselves and don't trust foreigners, particularly after
living in so hard conditions like in space, and after making so much
effort to build a world from nothing. I don't believe they will be
willing to share their cities with newcommers.
However, I don't believe that will be a problem. The solar system
can acommodate 1 trillion people easily and is plenty of room.
Omar Vega
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> I dissagree with that point. I believe, space settlements will be
> made not by a single station but by dozens, and perhaps hundreds,
of
> cities and towns of all sizes and populations.
>
> Those settlements will have to be flexible to allow population
> growth, new developments, spliting in two cities, getting rid of
all
> technologies, etc. Settlements will be more like today's cities
than
> a giant ship, because they will have to change and adapt
continuosly.
>
> I don't believe it will be possible an exponential population
growth
> but perhaps a 20% increase in population every twenty years could
be
> achievable.
>
i imagine they will be more like small countries, each setting up its
own laws and morals and such.
>
> If settlements have population growth, some people leaving now and
> then won't make any difference at all. In the other hand, I believe
> immigration may be forbidden. Why? Because small comunities tend
to
> live for themselves and don't trust foreigners, particularly after
> living in so hard conditions like in space, and after making so
much
> effort to build a world from nothing. I don't believe they will be
> willing to share their cities with newcommers.
>
> However, I don't believe that will be a problem. The solar system
> can acommodate 1 trillion people easily and is plenty of room.
>
> Omar Vega
>
how is anyone going to immagrate unless they have a place to go to.
the only way they can build new stations is if someone is rich enough
to do so or a large group get the money together. its very possible
that as a station starts to get over crowded the goverment of that
station will elect to spend the money to build a new station for
the "excess" population, but it will certainly expect to get repayed.
thats another point, how would they make the money back to pay for
the work to make the station. it could very easily be that a colony
station could end up being a slave colony for the first. it would not
have the name, but they would not gain any luxeries until they paid
for the building of the station, and until the originting goverment
agreed they had paid for it, they would still be able to manipulate
things to keep the money coming. on earth, the goverment always
claimed they had the land rights to all the new land, but that did
not take into account the past owners of it. in space, they will
build as they see fit and only when they can recover the cost.
population population growth (chemicals secretly added to water,
ect.) than to build a new station. those in power arent going to want
to risk losing their power.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
>
> your assuming that ppl will be given the right to leave. there are
> many ways to stop ppl who dont want to live under the goverment
that
> wants them there. one example is that they would be required to
pay
> the goverment for the cost of bringing in someone to do their job
> before they left. since the station has a zero population
ballance.
> the new person cant come in until someone leaves. since the
person
> cant leave until his replacement is there and trained, he cat
leave.
> it would be by the law and legal, but it would block any hope of
> anyone leaving. everyone would have the right to leave, but only
if
> they followed a law that could not be followed.
>
population in a colony that you could not have approx 1 percent play
in your workforce - otherwise you are a disaster waiting to happen.
On 6/17/06, Omar E. Vega wrote:
(...)
> I don't believe it will be possible an exponential population growth
> but perhaps a 20% increase in population every twenty years could be
> achievable.
(...)
exponential growth, though a slow one. It is equivalent to a yearly
population growth of 0.9% or so.
first, if it were, it would be a result of bad goverment, which is
what most would call a goverment that would not give ppl the freedom
to leave.
would actually be that. you can make studies say what you want, if
you the one that controls the data.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "levi1_ca" wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
> >
> > your assuming that ppl will be given the right to leave. there
are
> > many ways to stop ppl who dont want to live under the goverment
> that
> > wants them there. one example is that they would be required to
> pay
> > the goverment for the cost of bringing in someone to do their job
> > before they left. since the station has a zero population
> ballance.
> > the new person cant come in until someone leaves. since the
> person
> > cant leave until his replacement is there and trained, he cat
> leave.
> > it would be by the law and legal, but it would block any hope of
> > anyone leaving. everyone would have the right to leave, but only
> if
> > they followed a law that could not be followed.
> >
> I would seriously hope that things are not so tight in jobs and
> population in a colony that you could not have approx 1 percent
play
I've heard slavery mentioned a few times here, as a future
possibility. Um... what are robots for?
wonderfully nice, but because slaves are a poor substitute for
machines. Slaves are what you use when the machines haven't been
invented yet.
On 6/18/06, Xenophile wrote:
(...)
> I think that slavery won't exist, not because everybody is so
> wonderfully nice, but because slaves are a poor substitute for
> machines. Slaves are what you use when the machines haven't been
> invented yet.
(...)
aspect *ever* be invented? Artificial intelligence, as well as fusion
reactors, seems one of those things that are always "50 years in the
future"...
And even if they are invented, there will always be societies were
human labor is more valued than machine labor. Even nowadays
handcrafted products for instance are more valued than equivalent
industrial mass-produced products.
or can AFFORD THE COST OF MACHINES
From: Xenophile
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Social diversity
I've heard slavery mentioned a few times here, as a future
possibility. Um... what are robots for?
I think that slavery won't exist, not because everybody is so
wonderfully nice, but because slaves are a poor substitute for
machines. Slaves are what you use when the machines haven't been
invented yet.
> Of course the question is: will machines as good as humans in every
> aspect *ever* be invented? Artificial intelligence, as well as fusion
> reactors, seems one of those things that are always "50 years in the
> future"...
>
> And even if they are invented, there will always be societies were
> human labor is more valued than machine labor. Even nowadays
> handcrafted products for instance are more valued than equivalent
> industrial mass-produced products.
>
Well, Artificial Intelligence seems to be a field of so much promises
and so little results. I know it because I studied AI during the late
80s, and nothing has changed since the last time I picked the books.
The problem with AI is quite simple: nobody has a clue about of the
real way the mind works. The current theories of AI are ridiculous and
naive, because they are so simple for the task they have in front. The
human mind is unbelievable complex, and only by studying AI one
realize we know really little about how it works.
Perhaps in the future, a hundred years from now, when the brain is
known better, there is a chance some sort of primitive AI develop.
That is a posibility but I am not very optimistic either. The truth is
there is not even a good AI system that can recover 3-D from
fotographs without the help of an operation.
In short AI systems does not exist. What do exist is AS: Artificial
Stupidity :)
Yes, scientist continue to sale the lay that "AI will be ready in 20
years". But that's just marketing for getting financial aid to support
research. It got nothing to do with reality. So, bye bye smart robots,
at least for the next 400 years, I'm afraid.
The case of Fusion is different. Fusion has been achieved already, and
the project ITER has the goal to develop the first prototype of
commercial fusion power plant. Perhaps in 30 years Fusion power will
be commonplace.
Regards,
Omar Vega
> From: Xenophile
> I've heard slavery mentioned a few times here, as a future
> possibility. Um... what are robots for?
but other things. Or rather have things done to them. The roman coliseum was
an institute of slavery. There is entertainment is seeing people suffer;
which is why some reality TV shows are so popular. A fully developed solar
system filled with habitats would be a space-opera style setting, because it
would be so easy to get from one 'planet' to another. Extrapolate human
diversity over a few thousand years in such an arrangement and you'll get
some very extreme legal systems.
My original post was intended to illustrate the very dark side of social
diversity; which is almost always portrayed as a good thing.
John
--- In spacesettlers, wrote:
>
> :-))
Generally, machines are put in because they are CHEAPER THAN PEOPLE.
Now, granted, slaves are cheaper than are free people, but as
technology improves machines keep getting cheaper, while slaves do
not. So slaves are still a poor second to machinery.
Besides, slaves have this nasty habit of wanting to be free.
Machines are free from freedom yearnings.
As for "will machines as good as humans in every aspect *ever* be
invented?" {Lucio de Souza Coelho} I would say, "maybe not in *every*
aspect, but in *enough* aspects, yes."
For several decades, robotic movement seemed to be stuck at the level
of getting a robot to take six steps w/o falling over. Suddenly we
have Asimo and his successors, some of which are starting to run.
Robot cars drove at three miles per hour for six hundred feet on
beautifuls days before running off the road. Now they drive
thousands of miles at sixty miles per hour in driving thunderstorms
just fine.
They will be good enough that anything they can't do would be too
complicated for a slave anyway (and you don't want your slaves
getting too capable, lest they start getting ideas).
until the robots become intelegent to work without supervision, they
still require humans to control them, and those humans can be slaved
to the work in one manner or another. when they robots become
intelegent enough, they may feel that they have certain rights.
perhaps you can explain why thing made in china and places like that
are so much cheaper. they can be made in the us with machines, but
they are cheaper coming from china made without the machines.
>
> --- In spacesettlers, wrote:
>
> > or can AFFORD THE COST OF MACHINES
> >
> > :-))
>
> Generally, machines are put in because they are CHEAPER THAN
PEOPLE.
> Now, granted, slaves are cheaper than are free people, but as
> technology improves machines keep getting cheaper, while slaves do
> not. So slaves are still a poor second to machinery.
>
> Besides, slaves have this nasty habit of wanting to be free.
> Machines are free from freedom yearnings.
>
> As for "will machines as good as humans in every aspect *ever* be
> invented?" {Lucio de Souza Coelho} I would say, "maybe not in
*every*
> aspect, but in *enough* aspects, yes."
> For several decades, robotic movement seemed to be stuck at the
level
> From: Omar E. Vega
> Well, Artificial Intelligence seems to be a field of so much promises
> and so little results.
can beat humans at chess if they're fast enough. Through enough power at
problems like walking and they can be solved through brute force computing.
> The
> human mind is unbelievable complex, and only by studying AI one
> realize we know really little about how it works.
So build bee minds instead, or aim for other simplier tasks, which is what
many researchers are doing. The humanoid stuff is usually for PR, just as
you said.
John
It is my observation that with all things human, no matter how depraved
something is there will always be somebody or some group who will
either proclaim it a good thing or push it from public view.
trafficking around the world to know it is still around.
I regret to say things like this will undoubtedly occur as man moves
into space.
On 6/18/06, Xenophile wrote:
(...)
> Generally, machines are put in because they are CHEAPER THAN PEOPLE.
(...)
least in Robotics. I myself had that misconception until one of my
Robotics teachers clarified things for me, ten years ago. When it
comes to industrial robots, for instance, maintenance costs are *very*
expensive; you can easily spend 5,000 dollars by replacing a tiny
component that fits in your hand. Robotic maintenance is so expensive
that indeed sometimes it would be cheaper to open a factory in some
developing country and let the cheap workers there do everything
manually.
The differential of industrial robots is not cost, but rather quality.
They will always put bolts and wedges in the same places, doing a far
more precise work than a human would do. By providing products of
superior quality they justify their costs.
By the way, now that you mentioned it, cost could conceivably be
another barrier for wide use of human-equivalent robots instead of
humans. Qrio, which was simply a sophisticated toy, had a price tag of
50,000 dollars or so. By that price you could pay a far more skilled
human worker from a developing country for years - perhaps more than
the "life expectancy" of the robot.
On 6/19/06, Robert wrote:
(...)
> perhaps you can explain why thing made in china and places like that
> are so much cheaper. they can be made in the us with machines, but
> they are cheaper coming from china made without the machines.
(...)
a policy of letting humans do the work whenever possible.
Certainly any increase in standards of living in the developing
countries will make the outsourcing of jobs to those countries less
tempting, and will make machinery more cost-effective. Also, as
technology improves, the initial and maintanance costs of the
machinery goes down.
near-starvation wages than it is to let robots do it, but people keep
getting more expensive and machinery keeps getting cheaper.
And what would a slave do? I know that there would be a market for
people who just like having power over another human being. I suppose
that slaves could be sold to such people. "I've had so much fun
lording it over Toby that I'd like to buy another." An expensive
hobby, but a market.
--- In spacesettlers, "Robert" wrote:
> are so much cheaper. they can be made in the us with machines, but
> they are cheaper coming from china made without the machines.
Because the machinery is still crude. But it keeps getting better.
And because the Chinese work for low wages and benifits. But they
keep getting more expensive. The Japanese used to work cheap. Now
they get paid more than Americans. AND they have some of the best
machinery.
By the time we have the space opera setting (which is a good point,
and has _Star Trek_ remakes running around my brain), the machinery
will be generations beyond where it is today. Even if we don't have
human-level AI, we will have machines that do most jobs better than
even the best people, and those few jobs left for people will be stuff
you wouldn't set a slave to... and even that will be done by machines
in another few decades after that.
Hi,
> Certainly any increase in standards of living in the developing
> countries will make the outsourcing of jobs to those countries less
> tempting, and will make machinery more cost-effective. Also, as
> technology improves, the initial and maintanance costs of the
> machinery goes down.
>
That already happens in many regions of Latin America. Wages are too
high in here to compete with China or India in manufacturing. So,
hurry up to develop cheaper and more efficient authomatic
manufacturing machinery.
> And what would a slave do? I know that there would be a market for
> people who just like having power over another human being. I
>suppose
> that slaves could be sold to such people. "I've had so much fun
> lording it over Toby that I'd like to buy another." An expensive
> hobby, but a market.
>
Well, agricultural or industrial slave man power is not of much use
in modern times. In the future is very likely all those process will
be fully authomatic. The problem for most workers, except in China
and India, today is lack of jobs rather than explotation.
But modern slavery is following other paths. The sexual explotation
of women and children is a business were slave owners are making
lots of money. Sexual tourism to Asia is widespread, for instance.
And the importation of sexual slaves to developed countries is a
booming business. And take a look at porn and prostitution industry
in developed countries, for example, which make a large part of the
product of some developed countries like Holland.
So, I am afraid mankind is very ingenuous to plot evil actions, and
in the future certainly they will find way to explote their fellows
human beings.
Omar
the only place i see for robots and robecs is in hazard condition
situation, such as during the creation of the station. instead of
having humans exposed to the dangers of space for long terms, they
could be inside a safe (relatively speaking) enclosure using laser
and radio to communicate with various machines in the 'hot'
environment of space. IMHO the risk factor would justify the cost.
precision would be a factor that would justify the cost, but for most
situation, i believe the human touch would be considered more
important (read cheaper)
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Lucio de Souza Coelho"
wrote:
> On 6/18/06, Xenophile wrote:
> (...)
> > Generally, machines are put in because they are CHEAPER THAN
PEOPLE.
> (...)
>
> Uh... I am afraid to say that is a common and old misconception, at
> least in Robotics. I myself had that misconception until one of my
> Robotics teachers clarified things for me, ten years ago. When it
> comes to industrial robots, for instance, maintenance costs are
*very*
> expensive; you can easily spend 5,000 dollars by replacing a tiny
> component that fits in your hand. Robotic maintenance is so
expensive
> that indeed sometimes it would be cheaper to open a factory in some
> developing country and let the cheap workers there do everything
> manually.
>
> The differential of industrial robots is not cost, but rather
quality.
> They will always put bolts and wedges in the same places, doing a
far
> more precise work than a human would do. By providing products of
> superior quality they justify their costs.
>
> By the way, now that you mentioned it, cost could conceivably be
> another barrier for wide use of human-equivalent robots instead of
> humans. Qrio, which was simply a sophisticated toy, had a price tag
of
this brings to mind a sf short story i read quite some time ago.
slavery had be abolished many centuries before, and most of the work
was done by robots. A sells man from the company came to see a worker
one day and was discussing the advantages of a new home. the worker
loved it, but it was well more than he could ever pay for. the pay
for all the work for his entire life had been mortgaged to pay for
the home his parents had bought. so to get the new home, he mortgaged
his sons life. after all it was easy work so no one ever complained
about how hard it was. the entire story he had a problem that he
could not figure out. finally at the end he did. he hated pushing
buttons. that's all he did, check the quality of the chairs the
robots made using the readouts on his console, and push one of two
buttons. but he hated it. due to the fact that he owned so much, he
could not stop or find a new job. slavery is merely a word, the
concept can be a lot more.
>
> --- In spacesettlers, "Robert" wrote:
>
> > perhaps you can explain why thing made in china and places like
that
> > are so much cheaper. they can be made in the us with machines, but
> > they are cheaper coming from china made without the machines.
>
> Because the machinery is still crude. But it keeps getting better.
> And because the Chinese work for low wages and benifits. But they
> keep getting more expensive. The Japanese used to work cheap. Now
> they get paid more than Americans. AND they have some of the best
> machinery.
>
> By the time we have the space opera setting (which is a good point,
> and has _Star Trek_ remakes running around my brain), the machinery
> will be generations beyond where it is today. Even if we don't have
> human-level AI, we will have machines that do most jobs better than
> even the best people, and those few jobs left for people will be
stuff
> you wouldn't set a slave to... and even that will be done by
machines