# 11725 byelaurens.cox@... on Sept. 5, 2010, 10:34 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Wow! Thanks for all the responses so far to my initial post!
But first I would like to respond to some of the comments in a general way.
First: The most common reaction I get when I bring this subject up is a sort of a brush-off. It's as if most people are convinced that we are doing the best we can to deal with the frailties of being human and we should basically just learn to live with them. I don't agree with that. I think these problems are worth devoting considerable time and effort to handling, and that they pose a significant threat to the survival of the human race.
There was an old sci-fi flick called "Dark Star" that depicted a space ship whose crew had basically "gone bad." It ended up blowing up due to an accident, if I recall correctly. Though some see Earth as going down this path, it has so much physical and social inertia that the negative influences in society have not (yet) been successful in causing total destruction. But what if things got so bad on a space colony that something like 911 were allowed to happen? An act like that could knock out the entire colony. So it seems to me that, both down here and out there, it would behoove us to get a better handle on this whole self-destructive phenomenon that goes on with some people.
Second: Who will leave earth.
I was looking at a future where everyone would ultimately be forced to leave earth or die here, due to solar system changes. But I know most of you are looking at a shorter time line than that. In almost any colonization scenario I can think of, you are going to get a very mixed population. To get onto the International Space Station you need all kinds of training, a certain psychological profile, extreme physical health, etc., etc. In most colonization scenarios it wouldn't be like that.
Some of you speculated that the first to go might actually be people who felt out of place or rejected on earth. That might be an accurate prediction. If so, they would need some sort of workable social technology even more.
Third: The role of fiction literature in exploring possible futures.
When I was younger I read a lot of sci-fi, but I didn't keep it up. So now I am really behind. But what most of the books I read did was to take some existing or proposed technology, either "hard" or "soft," develop some future-time scenario for it and then see how it played out. The memorable stories survive as warnings of what could happen if we blindly embrace certain "solutions" or carelessly move ahead without any.
To cite another movie example: Star Wars had the Jedi, who were very instrumental in keeping things going. But we don't have any group like that these days. Do we, perhaps, need such a group? Fiction is great for making people think, even introducing new ideas.
Space Colony Ideal Scene
Some messages had to do with how people who misbehaved might be treated on a colony. This is more to the point of my first post.
Here are some of my ideas for how a space colony would have to operate socially to survive for a reasonable length of time:
1)Don't mess with people if things are going well. Police actions tend to be wasteful because most people are cool. The police function itself can go criminal, so it has to be kept very focused.
2)Have some sort of "early warning system." People have to take some responsibility for each other. If there is a reporting system that is fair, people will use it to help resolve situations. This means no one reports on someone else behind their back. The "police" function uses reports to identify possible bad situations and handle before they blow up.
3)Don't wait for something criminal to happen. Accidents are considered a part of life. But if someone starts having a lot of them, it can indicate that the person has an issue that needs to be resolved. The system would be designed to catch people before they go "hard core."
4)Effective corrective technologies are known and used. People are valuable to a group. They are doing jobs that help the group survive. If they start failing, there are measures short of kicking them out that can be taken. A well-run space colony would invest most of its corrective energy in applying technologies designed to strengthen its members so that they would be very unlikely to "go criminal."
5)"Hard core" misbehavors are effectively handled. In a society where criminals are not under good control, a bright or creative person can be seen as a threat, labeled as "misbehaving" and sent away, never to be seen again. This gives the whole justice system a bad reputation. A well-run space colony would not allow such a thing to happen. Its justice system would have to be set up to correctly identify persons who were a real threat to the group, and to protect good people from malicious attempts to use the justice system to get rid of them. And its corrective technologies would have to actually be effective. Most people think that hard core misbehavors need to be jailed or killed. That might make someone feel better, but it does nothing to handle the criminal. My research tells me that criminals think that some external force made them do bad things. To break that thought pattern you have to get them to take back their own sense of responsibility for what they do. A well-run space colony would discover and use a technology that could accomplish that.
6)There are more interesting and worthwhile opponents in the game of life than criminals. A well-run space colony would invest the majority of its creative energy in playing the higher games of survival, having solved the basic problems of body health and mental health within its own group.
Well, there you go. We could just leave it at that. The BIG problems of space colonization, after all, ARE the engineering problems. BUT will we ever get the chance to lick those problems and move forward to actual implementation of the first space colony? That depends on how well we handle "Space Colony One" (Earth). We need more time to solve the engineering problems of space colonization. That means we need our home planet in good enough shape to support such a project.
# 11726 byvictors@... on Sept. 6, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
As far as a 'police' force on a habitat, I'd rather see a situation wherein there is no standing security force but rather one where all members of the hab receive basic training in emergency management and if an emergency arises a 'response team' is elected that would include whichever specialties are needed to respond to the crisis at hand. This would tend to minimize traditional misuses of power inherent in police forces, and to more deeply involve all members of the hab in the overall responsibility for their own environment and its' maintenance and tend to make interpersonal interventions and discipline fairer and more equitable. The crisis teams would, of course, have access to all the data available on jurisprudence and other subject matter that mankind has amassed over the ages at the touch of a computer screen.
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 12:22 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Thanks for your contributions; further discussion.
Wow! Thanks for all the responses so far to my initial post!
With this post I want to develop the subject a little further.
But first I would like to respond to some of the comments in a general way.
First: The most common reaction I get when I bring this subject up is a sort of a brush-off. It's as if most people are convinced that we are doing the best we can to deal with the frailties of being human and we should basically just learn to live with them. I don't agree with that. I think these problems are worth devoting considerable time and effort to handling, and that they pose a significant threat to the survival of the human race.
There was an old sci-fi flick called "Dark Star" that depicted a space ship whose crew had basically "gone bad." It ended up blowing up due to an accident, if I recall correctly. Though some see Earth as going down this path, it has so much physical and social inertia that the negative influences in society have not (yet) been successful in causing total destruction. But what if things got so bad on a space colony that something like 911 were allowed to happen? An act like that could knock out the entire colony. So it seems to me that, both down here and out there, it would behoove us to get a better handle on this whole self-destructive phenomenon that goes on with some people.
Second: Who will leave earth.
I was looking at a future where everyone would ultimately be forced to leave earth or die here, due to solar system changes. But I know most of you are looking at a shorter time line than that. In almost any colonization scenario I can think of, you are going to get a very mixed population. To get onto the International Space Station you need all kinds of training, a certain psychological profile, extreme physical health, etc., etc. In most colonization scenarios it wouldn't be like that.
Some of you speculated that the first to go might actually be people who felt out of place or rejected on earth. That might be an accurate prediction. If so, they would need some sort of workable social technology even more.
Third: The role of fiction literature in exploring possible futures.
When I was younger I read a lot of sci-fi, but I didn't keep it up. So now I am really behind. But what most of the books I read did was to take some existing or proposed technology, either "hard" or "soft," develop some future-time scenario for it and then see how it played out. The memorable stories survive as warnings of what could happen if we blindly embrace certain "solutions" or carelessly move ahead without any.
To cite another movie example: Star Wars had the Jedi, who were very instrumental in keeping things going. But we don't have any group like that these days. Do we, perhaps, need such a group? Fiction is great for making people think, even introducing new ideas.
Space Colony Ideal Scene
Some messages had to do with how people who misbehaved might be treated on a colony. This is more to the point of my first post.
Here are some of my ideas for how a space colony would have to operate socially to survive for a reasonable length of time:
1)Don't mess with people if things are going well. Police actions tend to be wasteful because most people are cool. The police function itself can go criminal, so it has to be kept very focused.
2)Have some sort of "early warning system." People have to take some responsibility for each other. If there is a reporting system that is fair, people will use it to help resolve situations. This means no one reports on someone else behind their back. The "police" function uses reports to identify possible bad situations and handle before they blow up.
3)Don't wait for something criminal to happen. Accidents are considered a part of life. But if someone starts having a lot of them, it can indicate that the person has an issue that needs to be resolved. The system would be designed to catch people before they go "hard core."
4)Effective corrective technologies are known and used. People are valuable to a group. They are doing jobs that help the group survive. If they start failing, there are measures short of kicking them out that can be taken. A well-run space colony would invest most of its corrective energy in applying technologies designed to strengthen its members so that they would be very unlikely to "go criminal."
5)"Hard core" misbehavors are effectively handled. In a society where criminals are not under good control, a bright or creative person can be seen as a threat, labeled as "misbehaving" and sent away, never to be seen again. This gives the whole justice system a bad reputation. A well-run space colony would not allow such a thing to happen. Its justice system would have to be set up to correctly identify persons who were a real threat to the group, and to protect good people from malicious attempts to use the justice system to get rid of them. And its corrective technologies would have to actually be effective. Most people think that hard core misbehavors need to be jailed or killed. That might make someone feel better, but it does nothing to handle the criminal. My research tells me that criminals think that some external force made them do bad things. To break that thought pattern you have to get them to take back their own sense of responsibility for what they do. A well-run space colony would discover and use a technology that could accomplish that.
6)There are more interesting and worthwhile opponents in the game of life than criminals. A well-run space colony would invest the majority of its creative energy in playing the higher games of survival, having solved the basic problems of body health and mental health within its own group.
Well, there you go. We could just leave it at that. The BIG problems of space colonization, after all, ARE the engineering problems. BUT will we ever get the chance to lick those problems and move forward to actual implementation of the first space colony? That depends on how well we handle "Space Colony One" (Earth). We need more time to solve the engineering problems of space colonization. That means we need our home planet in good enough shape to support such a project.
# 11727 bybhn1700@... on Sept. 7, 2010, 1:02 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> 4)Effective corrective technologies are known and used. People are valuable to a group. They are doing jobs that help the group survive. If they start failing, there are measures short of kicking them out that can be taken. A well-run space colony would invest most of its corrective energy in applying technologies designed to strengthen its members so that they would be very unlikely to "go criminal."
> 5)"Hard core" misbehavors are effectively handled. In a society where criminals are not under good control, a bright or creative person can be seen as a threat, labeled as "misbehaving" and sent away, never to be seen again. This gives the whole justice system a bad reputation. A well-run space colony would not allow such a thing to happen. Its justice system would have to be set up to correctly identify persons who were a real threat to the group, and to protect good people from malicious attempts to use the justice system to get rid of them. And its corrective technologies would have to actually be effective. Most people think that hard core misbehavors need to be jailed or killed. That might make someone feel better, but it does nothing to handle the criminal. My research tells me that criminals think that some external force made them do bad things. To break that thought pattern you have to get them to take back their own sense of responsibility for what they do. A well-run space colony would discover and use a technology that could accomplish that.
I don't understand why not effectively controlling criminals would make it more likely to deport mislabeled non criminals who are bright or creative? I think most people agree that hard core, (theives, rapists, and murderers) criminals are best handled with incarceration and separation from others in society so they cannot do harm to others. I'm not really sure a social theory for the elimination of criminality has been found yet, so we'll have to go with what we know until then, which is progressively increasing penalties for criminal behavior based on how bad the behavior is and eventual seperation from society for the worst behavior. (I'm all for finding the magic bullet that will abolish prisons, but we have to live within the reality of current behavior until that time.)
> 6)There are more interesting and worthwhile opponents in the game of life than criminals. A well-run space colony would invest the majority of its creative energy in playing the higher games of survival, having solved the basic problems of body health and mental health within its own group.
Um, if someone has stolen my property, raped my neighbor, or killed their own spouse or coworker. I want to invest in a justice system to address these individuals. Again I 'hope' for a world where we have 'solved the the basic problems of body health and mental health'. But we haven't on Earth with none of the added risks/demands of a space colony.
Brooks
# 11728 byjanet_baker76@... on Sept. 7, 2010, 1:34 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hi, Victor,
You wrote, 'As far as a 'police' force on a habitat, I'd rather see a situation wherein there is no standing security force but rather one where all members of the hab receive basic training in emergency management and if an emergency arises a 'response team' is elected that would include whichever specialties are needed to respond to the crisis at hand.'
If that were possible, dear heart, we'd do it here, in our present habitat. The fact is, we need a professional protective force. There has never been a human grouping without it. We do not survive in isolation, and in society, we need an extremely sophisticated amalgam of controls, some obvious and visible, and others subtle.
And that police force needs oversight. And etc. etc. In the end, one needs a population that is in synch with its state, and a state that has a firm grasp of the common good and is immune from manipulation. That does not sound like a democracy to me. Furthermore, I'd even say the state has to understand that the 'care and feeding' of human persons involves more than food and water and oxygen. We could do amazing things with very little of those elements, if our spirit was in it. What lights that fire, that is the pre-eminent question.
I'd venture to say, secularism doesn't have it. Try as it might to make the values of, say, Chase bank stick(their ads exhorting us to speak to the El rider across from us permeate Chicago), it just doesn't spark a thing. Furthermore, it seems to me that we are at a critical point now, of population being out of synch with its state. Last fourth of July, which was a Sunday, I watched every family in our church abandon our front row seats on the local parade route, for the parade that would begin shortly after mass was out so that the timing was perfect. Our families went home, and quickly, when others were lining up. I asked one mom as she was putting that last tyke in the van, Aren't you staying?! She gave me such a look. Why, no, she said, we don't want our kids to see the things going on in that parade.
Oh, yeah. That. The Sexualization of Everything Folks. Planned Parenthood will be passing out its latest venture into publishing: 'Young, Healthy, and Hot,' intended for the girl scouts. (Oh yeah. Google it, if it strikes you hard enough that teaching little girls to look forward to their next orgasm falls short of teaching them to subordinate sex to marriage and family, and putting all that energy to work--on space questions! On accomplishing something for all of us! Oh, the waste. And oh, the small vision of some elements of our world.)
I have my own theory, regarding the populating of the colonies. Our earth is going to fling humans out in a new, social big bang. When you can't take your kids to the local parade--you need a new planet.
I think your yearning for a police-less state, Vince, is related to the dream that the market could be free if only some people would leave it alone. They both avoid the discussion of what kind of state we actually need. That's also the question we're at war with Islam about, I think. Don't you think that space colonization involves every question facing us here on earth? It's very fascinating.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
# 11729 byvictors@... on Sept. 7, 2010, 3:59 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Janet,
Yeah, I said I'd "rather see", which, granted is wishful thinking. And, I'd agree with you as to the 'Big Bang', or Diaspora being a probability if we can EVER get cheap transit to orbit. I would venture to say that it's even very likely that among the first groups to blast off and constituting a large percentage of the early waves, will be assorted religious groups that think they have the answer and that their 'Way' is the one that will save Humanity. That's always been our pattern of expansion. It even works, for a while. The problems come about when those beliefs come to be challenged, or when fanatics take the helm and distort or misapply original precepts. Religious communities, like Democracies, only work on the small scale. We need to find a way for Humans to live with LESS controls placed on them rather than to just sustain and prolong the faulty systems that we've so long labored under on Earth. There simply HAS to be a MUCH better system. If not, then we're destined for war and all its' attendant miseries for eternity.
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:34 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Thanks for your contributions; further discussion.
Hi, Victor,
I don't agree that engineering problems are the main ones to be faced in the colonization of space. The care and feeding of the amazing human person is the lynch pin, the motivation of which is everything. That's my two cents.
You wrote, 'As far as a 'police' force on a habitat, I'd rather see a situation wherein there is no standing security force but rather one where all members of the hab receive basic training in emergency management and if an emergency arises a 'response team' is elected that would include whichever specialties are needed to respond to the crisis at hand.'
If that were possible, dear heart, we'd do it here, in our present habitat. The fact is, we need a professional protective force. There has never been a human grouping without it. We do not survive in isolation, and in society, we need an extremely sophisticated amalgam of controls, some obvious and visible, and others subtle.
And that police force needs oversight. And etc. etc. In the end, one needs a population that is in synch with its state, and a state that has a firm grasp of the common good and is immune from manipulation. That does not sound like a democracy to me. Furthermore, I'd even say the state has to understand that the 'care and feeding' of human persons involves more than food and water and oxygen. We could do amazing things with very little of those elements, if our spirit was in it. What lights that fire, that is the pre-eminent question.
I'd venture to say, secularism doesn't have it. Try as it might to make the values of, say, Chase bank stick(their ads exhorting us to speak to the El rider across from us permeate Chicago), it just doesn't spark a thing. Furthermore, it seems to me that we are at a critical point now, of population being out of synch with its state. Last fourth of July, which was a Sunday, I watched every family in our church abandon our front row seats on the local parade route, for the parade that would begin shortly after mass was out so that the timing was perfect. Our families went home, and quickly, when others were lining up. I asked one mom as she was putting that last tyke in the van, Aren't you staying?! She gave me such a look. Why, no, she said, we don't want our kids to see the things going on in that parade.
Oh, yeah. That. The Sexualization of Everything Folks. Planned Parenthood will be passing out its latest venture into publishing: 'Young, Healthy, and Hot,' intended for the girl scouts. (Oh yeah. Google it, if it strikes you hard enough that teaching little girls to look forward to their next orgasm falls short of teaching them to subordinate sex to marriage and family, and putting all that energy to work--on space questions! On accomplishing something for all of us! Oh, the waste. And oh, the small vision of some elements of our world.)
I have my own theory, regarding the populating of the colonies. Our earth is going to fling humans out in a new, social big bang. When you can't take your kids to the local parade--you need a new planet.
I think your yearning for a police-less state, Vince, is related to the dream that the market could be free if only some people would leave it alone. They both avoid the discussion of what kind of state we actually need. That's also the question we're at war with Islam about, I think. Don't you think that space colonization involves every question facing us here on earth? It's very fascinating.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
# 11730 bybhn1700@... on Sept. 7, 2010, 9:11 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> Oh, yeah. That. The Sexualization of Everything Folks. Planned Parenthood will be passing out its latest venture into publishing: 'Young, Healthy, and Hot,' intended for the girl scouts. (Oh yeah. Google it, if it strikes you hard enough that teaching little girls to look forward to their next orgasm falls short of teaching them to subordinate sex to marriage and family, and putting all that energy to work--on space questions! On accomplishing something for all of us! Oh, the waste. And oh, the small vision of some elements of our world.)
> I think your yearning for a police-less state, Vince, is related to the dream that the market could be free if only some people would leave it alone. They both avoid the discussion of what kind of state we actually need. That's also the question we're at war with Islam about, I think. Don't you think that space colonization involves every question facing us here on earth? It's very fascinating.
At war with Islam? A religion of 1.5 billion people? Um, what? Al Qaeda attacked us, not Islam, please don't throw 1.5 billion people and their religion under the bus because you can't differentiate between terrorists and someone's faith.
Brooks
# 11731 byjanet_baker76@... on Sept. 8, 2010, 2:18 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hi, Vince. Yeah, I know your point well, that as long as some people think they are 'right' and others 'wrong' (it's illegal to use those words without quotes now! or soon will be) there will always be war. Yeah, that's true. It's gotta be. Now maybe we could control the shooting wars. But maybe not. This leads me to conclude: there is the motivation we need to keep going outward . . .outward is pretty darn far . . .maybe it's far enough . . .maybe war isn't so bad.
This is the end-all heresy now. But what if it's better to die for something you believe in, as long as passion lives on, than to live damn long saying 'whatever' to every love, every color, every song, I just don't know how to say it.
Protestantism and Catholicism managed to live more or less in peace for a while, but they are irreconsilable elements (regarding divorce, for one practical thing--protestants must allow it by doctrine, too long to explain), and for sure Catholicism and Islam are irreconsilable although they both prefer the religious state as the ideal one for cultural, social peace--for social coherence, let me put it that way. (Discount the teaching of Vatican II: pure sellout. Traditional Catholicism is incompatible with secularism, and new Catholicism is a zombie. It's just walking around until somebody pushes it over, which appears to be about to happen at any minute.) And they're right to think so. Just as religious differences lead to war, as you said, secularism leads to indifference, and exhaustion. And deadlock over the incoherence. We're deadlocked, in our secular state. Even just think, on space matters. None of it is engineering, what is keeping us down on the farm is not engineering, or even expense. All of it is political (another word for religious--even Aristotle knew it) We're so done. So played. And yet there is the universe out there, just waiting for us. Vincent, war is better than this false damn peace. Martyrdom is better than zombiedom. IMHO.I expect the thought police will be breaking down the door any moment now, for my trip to thought rehab.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
# 11732 byjanet_baker76@... on Sept. 8, 2010, 2:27 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
What 'illegitimate sources' did you find? Austin Ruse's group in the UN? For one? That's at least as legitimate as the New York Times (not that the Times denies this)! You found a source, though. You have to use what thinking tools you have available to determine legitimacy, since the time is long past when any media outlet had any default credibility. Is the alleged message and pamphlet title inconsistent with the philosophy of Planned Parenthood? Not at all! They do not honor sexual purity, even for children. Sex is for fun. That's the deal. Austin Ruse said this pamphlet was distributed to representatives from the girl scouts as young as fifth grade by reps from Planned Parenthood at a UN youth meeting--about six months ago, I guess it's been. He's been on the money regarding UN activity for many years now, and this is what PP teaches daily to the children of the world, go pick up a pamphlet or two at your beloved local branch.
# 11733 bybhn1700@... on Sept. 11, 2010, 7:35 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Janet, Austin Ruse's groups stated vision is "The preservation of international law by discrediting socially radical policies at the United Nations and other international institutions."
Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76" wrote:
# 11734 bybhn1700@... on Sept. 11, 2010, 8:02 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--Just as religious differences lead to war, as you said, secularism leads to indifference, and exhaustion. And deadlock over the incoherence. We're deadlocked, in our secular state. Even just think, on space matters. None of it is engineering, what is keeping us down on the farm is not engineering, or even expense. All of it is political (another word for religious--even Aristotle knew it) We're so done. So played. And yet there is the universe out there, just waiting for us. Vincent, war is better than this false damn peace. Martyrdom is better than zombiedom. IMHO.I expect the thought police will be breaking down the door any moment now, for my trip to thought rehab.
Brooks
# 11735 byjanet_baker76@... on Sept. 12, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Brooks, I think Auston Ruse (plus knowledge of Planned Parenthood's public mission statement) is more credible to report on PP's sexual message to the girl scouts than the New York Times. His vision (exercised over lots of years) is as you say, the preservation of international law by discrediting socially radical policies, and the NY Times' vision, not stated at all and known to every active student of current affairs, is their victory. Both are biased, his the one more friendly to space colonization. The other leads to what we have now, exhaustion, a disinclination to sacrifice, a disinclination to learn, all expressed in the current, on-going disinterest in space matters, although you attribute all that to simple cost factor. And yes, I do think war is better than indifference. That's the harshest statement I've ever made in my entire life, and made without any experience of war, but I stand by it, and justify my lack of practical experience in warfare by a hope for martyrdom, which is I guess a battle of one. A life lived without loving something that much is just not lived at all.There are things that are non-negotiable. They'd better be important, that's for sure. After that, death is a small price. I wouldn't mind listing them at all, don't tempt me. They all amount to respect for the enormous capability of humanity, not its debasement, not its reduction to pleasure-seeking machines.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
# 11736 bysailorbarsoom@... on Sept. 13, 2010, 5:33 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I don't believe the Girl Scout story. Such lolicon stuff
can make for funny anime, but I'm not buying it here.
# 11737 bybhn1700@... on Sept. 13, 2010, 1:14 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Janet, if you think an organisation who's sole purpose is discrediting the UN and PP has as much credibility as any mainstream news outlet we have very different views of the world. I don't see how he cares more or less about space then NYT. On cost, we already have extremely rich people taking tourist trips to space and surveys showing that 10% of the US population would spend a years salary to go to space. I think its reasonable to extrapolate that cost is the major factor in keeping us from fast expansion off planet.
No need to apologize, we are in very different worlds it seems, I would be more then happy to discuss anything we've talked about, (my other passion is politics) but perhaps privately since we've strayed far from our purpose here.
Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76" wrote:
# 11738 byjanet_baker76@... on Sept. 13, 2010, 2:20 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
So, sailer, what's Planned Parenthood doing, without the 'girl scouts story'? Do they ever try to make the point that sexual expression is the natural thing and that restrictions upon it are old-fashioned, stupid, and probably violations of the Constitution? If so, doesn't common sense tell you that the 'story' (told by credible, long-time reporters on UN doings) of this policy being promulgated among fifth graders on a visit there, has a chance to be true--and that you should at least research as well as possible (for none of us were there, so far)before not 'buying it,' as you put it?
See, channeling sex into non-reproductive uses lowers the population. Forget "family planning." It doesn't work out. South Korea was successful in lowering its re-population rate to the supposedly desirable balanced replacement rate--two kids per two people, or couple. Actually two point two, to allow for childhood deaths and infertility among some couples--which is higher than that now. But they ran into the problem that their women no longer want to have any children at all. We've been taught to cheer at that notion whenever we hear it, by the New York Times among others. But those of us who would like to see a future in space ought not to. Why do I say that?
Because Brooks is right to look at economic factors limiting our impetus to the stars--just not at tourism. There have to be economic reasons to make that leap, incentives, needs not being met, markets not being tapped. How can we reach that stage? NOT IN CONTRACTION MODE! That's the message being pounded out every single day, but we aren't understanding it. What do you think it means, falling market? Tapped-out markets? Buyer exhaustion? We are no longer --those countries whose development could possibly sustain a drive to space--growing. We are contracting. Houses are unsold. They say, 'we overbuilt.' They built to the rate of expansion suggested by the past--before Planned Parenthood. They could say, Wow, we have no buyers. Wow, we killed them! (Fifty million abortions in the last forty years in the US.) But it's way safer to say, We overbuilt. Multiply that by cars, by clothes, by every commodity that might drive us to find an asteroid to milk. It's not there! We've already eaten all we can and they aren't going to pay us any more, because that particular market doesn't justify it, and the only way to have that safe, gentle, sustained growth that might allow us to go 'head with space is just not there. And you can thank Planned Parenthood, whose goal is not going anywhere, but steadily reducing earth's 'undesirables', just like their foundress fervently wished. (There is no country on earth that can demonstrate they can 'plan' population (that would be us). They hit 2.2 births per couple and then they keep on falling. Immigration--like here in the US, the Mexicans are still having babies, for a minute, or in Europe it's Muslim immigration but in any case it ain't middle class reproduction, the kids are more burdens than assets, and anyway, the immigrants lose their desire to make families with the second generation, as soon as Planned Parenthood gets to them, through the girl scounts, through the schools.)
"Here" needs to fight Planned Parenthood along with more 'scientific' discussions of how many cubic centimeters of hydrogen yields how many gallons of whatever. I mean, just sayin.'
It would also be a good idea for 'here' to figure out how getting into space could result in broader ownership for the ordinary guy and gal earthling. Not higher salary, but actual shares. That's a religious question, by the way.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "sailor.barsoom" wrote:
# 11739 bybhn1700@... on Sept. 13, 2010, 4:31 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Janet, there are no credible, long-time reporters on UN doings who have reported this story, period. Please provide some credible evidence for your claims not just, a right wing anti UN anti Planned Parenthood organisation X told me it happened.
The housing boom was due to a speculative bubble not overestimating birth rates and miss counting abortions.
The Earth cannot sustain humans much beyond our current level, getting to space should not be strived for by destroying Earth for humans. That's like saying we should get more houses by sealing the toilets and using the floors as a bathroom until we are forced to move on. Access to birth control allows us to decide when and how many children to have and reduces population growth, poverty, and strains on our environment.
Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76" wrote:
# 11740 byelaurens.cox@... on Sept. 13, 2010, 5:56 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
The main point of your post seems to be that we don't currently have a social technology capable of preventing crime, so any space colony would have to rely on the technologies we use now. That's a perfectly valid point. I have discovered a set of technologies that I think would be a big advance, but they are not yet in wide use.
My main point is: Can a space colony survive if its social technologies are no better than what we use on earth today? Though it is true that earth has so far "survived," I don't see its condition as improving, and that condition seems a good deal below the level that would be acceptable in a small (by comparison) space colony. Therefore, a needful part of the design process would include a choice of its social technologies, or the development of new ones if existing ones tested out as unworkable.
Janet implied that what might be required is a certain amount of contribution from the religious sector to create a group strong enough to survive in space for the long haul.
And that is, in fact, where the technologies I discovered come from. However, technologies seen as religious in nature have traditionally been neglected by the academic social scientists. Some technologies, including the ones I have discovered, have such strong opponents that they cannot even get a fair airing on the internet or in the media. I would argue that at least some of those enemies are, themselves, criminals, and are opposed to some of the newer social technologies because those technologies would tend to close some of the "holes" in our current system that help keep many criminal operations going.
My use of the term "hard core" needs some explanation. Of course that would include the types of crimes generally categorized as felonies that are very serious and destructive and almost always involve human victims. But it would also include the "drug kingpins" of the world, and other persons of that sort. These sorts of criminals seldom get apprehended because they make it a practice of acting through others. Though their intentions are vicious, they may appear to be upstanding citizens in their communities. Quite ordinarily, the financing for large criminal operations flow through persons of this type. Historic examples include the slave trade and the opium trade. These both started as "legitimate" enterprises, although obviously they were morally unsound. But even after they were made illegal, certain big financial players stayed involved. This is the kind of "hard core" criminal that the new technologies attempt to locate and isolate. You can't trace them to dead bodies. Their underlings do all that work and are in turn murdered if they talk.
I am almost out of steam and time for this post. Let me very briefly list the technologies that would be needful:
1) A moral technology to establish basic agreements in a group about right and wrong. This would include what we now call "human rights."
2) A technology to make a person literate.
3) A technology to make, or keep, a person addiction-free.
4) A technology to rehabilitate persons who have committed crimes.
5) A technology to identify and isolate "hard core" criminals. There should also be a means of rehabilitation, though it is unlikely that most groups would ever trust such people to honestly reform.
The people handled by technology #5 prey on the people handled by technologies 1-4. That's why all five are useful. This list only includes the most critically-needed social technologies to help a group survive. Others that serve other purposes exist or could be developed, but the focus of my post was crime, and these 5 address that subject specifically.
# 11741 bybhn1700@... on Sept. 14, 2010, 4:46 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> And that is, in fact, where the technologies I discovered come from. However, technologies seen as religious in nature have traditionally been neglected by the academic social scientists. Some technologies, including the ones I have discovered, have such strong opponents that they cannot even get a fair airing on the internet or in the media. I would argue that at least some of those enemies are, themselves, criminals, and are opposed to some of the newer social technologies because those technologies would tend to close some of the "holes" in our current system that help keep many criminal operations going.
> My use of the term "hard core" needs some explanation. Of course that would include the types of crimes generally categorized as felonies that are very serious and destructive and almost always involve human victims. But it would also include the "drug kingpins" of the world, and other persons of that sort. These sorts of criminals seldom get apprehended because they make it a practice of acting through others. Though their intentions are vicious, they may appear to be upstanding citizens in their communities. Quite ordinarily, the financing for large criminal operations flow through persons of this type. Historic examples include the slave trade and the opium trade. These both started as "legitimate" enterprises, although obviously they were morally unsound. But even after they were made illegal, certain big financial players stayed involved. This is the kind of "hard core" criminal that the new technologies attempt to locate and isolate. You can't trace them to dead bodies. Their underlings do all that work and are in turn murdered if they talk.
I'm not sure how big a space colony would have to be before king pins become a problem. I'm sure it might but my first thoughts are that many current communities here don't have kingpins and a space colony would very likely start with a very self selected group of people. The rich, space enthusiasts, homesteaders, religious and political seperatists, some workers to support these communities. It would seem further down the road in time before scarface runs a drug empire in the little new Havana orbiting at GSO with 10,000 inhabitants to try and sell to.
> I am almost out of steam and time for this post. Let me very briefly list the technologies that would be needful:
> 1) A moral technology to establish basic agreements in a group about right and wrong. This would include what we now call "human rights."
> 2) A technology to make a person literate.
> 3) A technology to make, or keep, a person addiction-free.
> 4) A technology to rehabilitate persons who have committed crimes.
> 5) A technology to identify and isolate "hard core" criminals. There should also be a means of rehabilitation, though it is unlikely that most groups would ever trust such people to honestly reform.
>
> The people handled by technology #5 prey on the people handled by technologies 1-4. That's why all five are useful. This list only includes the most critically-needed social technologies to help a group survive. Others that serve other purposes exist or could be developed, but the focus of my post was crime, and these 5 address that subject specifically.
1) Couldn't laws and for many religious texts already fill this area?
2) Couldn't public education fill this area?
3) AA, NA and in patient treatment can go so far, developing a social technology to keep a person addiction free along with the goal of getting humans into space seems to be splitting energies. Other better informed earnest people are working on this issue now.
4) Similar to 3) some programs for therapy, education, job training, victim reconciliation, etc. exist to an underfunded degree in the current system, and others are working on this problem now.
5) Again similar to 3) people are working on this here and now on Earth, I'd think taking their techniques on how to do this would seem the best course.
Believe me I'm very much an advocate for increased funding and research into rehabilitation and alternative methods to incarceration, but without having facts on what works or doesn't work. We should only go with what we know works now in planning a colony off planet, to be adjusted with new facts of course.
Brooks
# 11742 bycsmyth3025@... on Sept. 16, 2010, 6:16 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
...> > I am almost out of steam and time for this post. Let me very
briefly list the technologies that would be needful:
> > 1) A moral technology to establish basic agreements in a group about
right and wrong. This would include what we now call "human rights."
> > 2) A technology to make a person literate.
> > 3) A technology to make, or keep, a person addiction-free.
> > 4) A technology to rehabilitate persons who have committed crimes.
> > 5) A technology to identify and isolate "hard core" criminals. There
should also be a means of rehabilitation, though it is unlikely that
most groups would ever trust such people to honestly reform ...
call laws in our legal system. Not everybody agrees with them, but
they're about as close as we'll ever get to what your proposing.
We also have #2 covered by what we call schools in our eucational
system. They're not perfect, but we try to make them as good as we can.
If you can find a sure-fire technology that accomplishes #3 and #4
you'll no doubt win the Nobel Prize.
#5 is already covered by #1.
Chris
# 11743 bycsmyth3025@... on Sept. 16, 2010, 6:16 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> I am almost out of steam and time for this post. Let me very briefly list the technologies that would be needful:
> 1) A moral technology to establish basic agreements in a group about right and wrong. This would include what we now call "human rights."
> 2) A technology to make a person literate.
> 3) A technology to make, or keep, a person addiction-free.
> 4) A technology to rehabilitate persons who have committed crimes.
> 5) A technology to identify and isolate "hard core" criminals. There should also be a means of rehabilitation, though it is unlikely that most groups would ever trust such people to honestly reform.
>
The technology to make a person literate is called schooling. Whether this is done by public schools, private schools, tutors, or home schooling is often a matter of personal choice in the developed nations of the world. Usually the community sets the minimum standards of education that are required.
If you can find a sure-fire method to "make, or keep a person addiction-free" and to "rehabilitate persons who have committed crimes" you will no doubt receive a Nobel Prize for your efforts.
The technology to "identify and isolate hard core criminals" is part of the aforementioned legal systems.
Chris
# 11744 byvictors@... on Sept. 17, 2010, 5:46 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Brooks you're absolutely correct. Lower launch costs and we can all go to space, whether for tourism or to settle by preference. In my opinion, one of the reasons we'll flee to space in numbers is to escape the tyranny of religions, though I'm equally sure that many religious splinter groups will hope to establish their own 'homelands'. Theocracy and war are both diseases that man is unfortunate enough to be highly susceptible to. Hopefully, given enough empty space between communities we can avoid both, at least for a while. Of course the most conservative factions will choose to remain on Earth, where their power base resides, so that will give the rest of us at least a little breathing room.
Victor
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 3:02 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Thanks for your contributions; further discussion.
--Just as religious differences lead to war, as you said, secularism leads to indifference, and exhaustion. And deadlock over the incoherence. We're deadlocked, in our secular state. Even just think, on space matters. None of it is engineering, what is keeping us down on the farm is not engineering, or even expense. All of it is political (another word for religious--even Aristotle knew it) We're so done. So played. And yet there is the universe out there, just waiting for us. Vincent, war is better than this false damn peace. Martyrdom is better than zombiedom. IMHO.I expect the thought police will be breaking down the door any moment now, for my trip to thought rehab.
Well it sounds like you prefer theocracy and war, frightening, I don't think we'd be living in the same space colony. I do think cost is the reason we aren't up there, lower the price and we won't have a half dozen tourists up there over the past 10 years but half a million.
Brooks
# 11745 byvictors@... on Sept. 17, 2010, 5:46 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Janet I do believe that you are a dyed in the wool conspiracy theorist, but regardless, these topics really don't belong in this forum
Victor
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 5:35 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Thanks for your contributions; further discussion.
Brooks, I think Auston Ruse (plus knowledge of Planned Parenthood's public mission statement) is more credible to report on PP's sexual message to the girl scouts than the New York Times. His vision (exercised over lots of years) is as you say, the preservation of international law by discrediting socially radical policies, and the NY Times' vision, not stated at all and known to every active student of current affairs, is their victory. Both are biased, his the one more friendly to space colonization. The other leads to what we have now, exhaustion, a disinclination to sacrifice, a disinclination to learn, all expressed in the current, on-going disinterest in space matters, although you attribute all that to simple cost factor. And yes, I do think war is better than indifference. That's the harshest statement I've ever made in my entire life, and made without any experience of war, but I stand by it, and justify my lack of practical experience in warfare by a hope for martyrdom, which is I guess a battle of one. A life lived without loving something that much is just not lived at all.There are things that are non-negotiable. They'd better be important, that's for sure. After that, death is a small price. I wouldn't mind listing them at all, don't tempt me. They all amount to respect for the enormous capability of humanity, not its debasement, not its reduction to pleasure-seeking machines.
But actually, I'm sorry if I offended you and I hope you'll accept my sincere apology. Tolerance is not the same thing as "religious freedom," and personally I am both tolerant and industrious and would make a good space neighbor, as on earth. It's just, the reason we're not getting there is deeper than economics. We have gone dangerously far down a wrong road, and in my opinion, down a road worse than war. And never trust the New York Times!
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
# 11746 byvictors@... on Sept. 17, 2010, 6 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Janet, even given drastically lowered costs for launch and readilly available habitats in space, only a small fraction of the populaqtion of planet Earth will ever go to space. Meanwhile, given your (and the Catholic churchs') preferences, we should all be obedient little baby factories. Well, the planet's already drowning in mouths to feed, droughts and crop failures kill hundreds of thousands yearly and overpopulation and your other favorite, war, kill millions in Africa. Because of overpopulation we have the ever present fear of epidemics that will sweep the planet. Population pressures force us to build more and more electrical generation plants which increase the already overpowering pollution problem and add to global warming. Where in that scenario is there room for still MORE people? We as a planet NEED to control and REDUCE our population growth where ever and how ever possible short of genocide.
Victor
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:20 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Thanks for your contributions; further discussion.
So, sailer, what's Planned Parenthood doing, without the 'girl scouts story'? Do they ever try to make the point that sexual expression is the natural thing and that restrictions upon it are old-fashioned, stupid, and probably violations of the Constitution? If so, doesn't common sense tell you that the 'story' (told by credible, long-time reporters on UN doings) of this policy being promulgated among fifth graders on a visit there, has a chance to be true--and that you should at least research as well as possible (for none of us were there, so far)before not 'buying it,' as you put it?
"Here" where you would like to avoid that kind of work is a forum dedicated to the promulgation of space colonies rather than to the promulgation of sex-for-fun, or sex-for-family-building, either one. You might think the two topics are worlds apart (sorry! couldn't resist it). But not.
See, channeling sex into non-reproductive uses lowers the population. Forget "family planning." It doesn't work out. South Korea was successful in lowering its re-population rate to the supposedly desirable balanced replacement rate--two kids per two people, or couple. Actually two point two, to allow for childhood deaths and infertility among some couples--which is higher than that now. But they ran into the problem that their women no longer want to have any children at all. We've been taught to cheer at that notion whenever we hear it, by the New York Times among others. But those of us who would like to see a future in space ought not to. Why do I say that?
Because Brooks is right to look at economic factors limiting our impetus to the stars--just not at tourism. There have to be economic reasons to make that leap, incentives, needs not being met, markets not being tapped. How can we reach that stage? NOT IN CONTRACTION MODE! That's the message being pounded out every single day, but we aren't understanding it. What do you think it means, falling market? Tapped-out markets? Buyer exhaustion? We are no longer --those countries whose development could possibly sustain a drive to space--growing. We are contracting. Houses are unsold. They say, 'we overbuilt.' They built to the rate of expansion suggested by the past--before Planned Parenthood. They could say, Wow, we have no buyers. Wow, we killed them! (Fifty million abortions in the last forty years in the US.) But it's way safer to say, We overbuilt. Multiply that by cars, by clothes, by every commodity that might drive us to find an asteroid to milk. It's not there! We've already eaten all we can and they aren't going to pay us any more, because that particular market doesn't justify it, and the only way to have that safe, gentle, sustained growth that might allow us to go 'head with space is just not there. And you can thank Planned Parenthood, whose goal is not going anywhere, but steadily reducing earth's 'undesirables', just like their foundress fervently wished. (There is no country on earth that can demonstrate they can 'plan' population (that would be us). They hit 2.2 births per couple and then they keep on falling. Immigration--like here in the US, the Mexicans are still having babies, for a minute, or in Europe it's Muslim immigration but in any case it ain't middle class reproduction, the kids are more burdens than assets, and anyway, the immigrants lose their desire to make families with the second generation, as soon as Planned Parenthood gets to them, through the girl scounts, through the schools.)
"Here" needs to fight Planned Parenthood along with more 'scientific' discussions of how many cubic centimeters of hydrogen yields how many gallons of whatever. I mean, just sayin.'
It would also be a good idea for 'here' to figure out how getting into space could result in broader ownership for the ordinary guy and gal earthling. Not higher salary, but actual shares. That's a religious question, by the way.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "sailor.barsoom" wrote: