I'm also forwarding this post for comments, please. Thank you.

Monart
Starship Aurora

* * * * *

Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: "Dumb Wannabe Colonists"
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:24:24 -0600
From: Dennis May
Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

Responding to an article, "Dumb Wannabee Colonists", on Mike Comb's Space
Settlement site

>What kind of American, or indeed Westerner, would give up a life on humdrum
>ol' Earth to live the rest of his life in cramped, uncertain, unpleasant
>conditions?

I would say the kind who exist in the millions.

>...just 10 cubic meters of cramped quarters, recycling your own urine,
>living in your own sweat, facing the dangers of decompression
>daily, seeing the same goddamn faces every day,knowing that down below on
>Earth people are laughing, and loving, breathing fresh air and running in
>spring sunshine,meeting people and living life.

Sounds like the lives lived by thousands of
U.S Navy people every year. How many technical
people live in near isolation with no money
for years of their lives while attending
college and graduate school?

>Cubans. Haitians. Somali's. Phillipino's. Timorese.
>They are the immigrants of the 21st century. They are the ones fleeing
>persecution and poverty, seeking a better life. They have far more in
>common with the passengers on the Mayflower than the overfed, overweight,
>self-satisfied, self-righteous, tax-paying, groundhogs sitting behind their
>computers and filling the Net with wannabe hogwash, boasting about their
>ancestor's deeds and imagining themselves to be their spiritual heirs.

So coming from poverty is a qualification for living
in space, not technical knowledge? I guess we should
man nuclear submarines with whatever poor boat people
we can locate. Two groups of my ancestors were in
North America before the Mayflower [German and Native
American] but that has nothing to do with anything.

>Colonists don't build ships. They colonize. Or die
>trying.

It is not obvious at this point who will build the
ships. I can assure you that my Native American
ancestors got here with no government involvement,
by their own means. In 1610 fur trapping private
interests brought one of my German ancestors.

>The ones with nothing to lose.
>And that means NOT you.

Unless they have the private means to get into
space [rich with something to loose] they will
be working for someone. Being poor with nothing
to loose is in no way a qualification for being
hired for space employment. Someone who is
qualified no longer has nothing to loose and is
very employable at good wages in any number of
jobs.

It will be motivated, educated, well trained
people who will move into space [no class warfare
requirement]. Qualified motivated people can come
from many places. I knew several technical
U.S. Air Force Officers who had come from 3rd
world nations as children and were more than
qualified to become space settlers. I have known
many educated people and many engineers who came
from all parts of the world both rich and poor.
Qualified is qualified. One of my civilian Air Force
engineering friends did indeed come to the United
States as a boat-person. He would have as much
to risk going into space as anyone coming from
a much hated overweight white European American
background. I am hearing Americans being hated
for their success, not for any rational reason.
My boat-person friend and his whole family are
now successful Americans, are they to be hated
as well, or is hate reserved for overweight
white successful Americans?

Dennis May

--- Monart Pon wrote:
> I'm also forwarding this post for comments, please. Thank you.
>
> Monart
>
> Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: "Dumb Wannabe Colonists"
> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:24:24 -0600
> From: Dennis May
> Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>
> Responding to an article, "Dumb Wannabee Colonists", on Mike Comb's Space
> Settlement site
>
> >What kind of American, or indeed Westerner, would give up a life on humdrum
> >ol' Earth to live the rest of his life in cramped, uncertain, unpleasant
> >conditions?
>
> I would say the kind who exist in the millions.

Likely to be many no matter what country.

> >...just 10 cubic meters of cramped quarters, recycling your own urine,
> >living in your own sweat, facing the dangers of decompression
> >daily, seeing the same goddamn faces every day,knowing that down below on
> >Earth people are laughing, and loving, breathing fresh air and running in
> >spring sunshine,meeting people and living life.
>
> Sounds like the lives lived by thousands of
> U.S Navy people every year. How many technical
> people live in near isolation with no money
> for years of their lives while attending
> college and graduate school?

A lot.

> >Cubans. Haitians. Somali's. Phillipino's. Timorese.
> >They are the immigrants of the 21st century. They are the ones fleeing
> >persecution and poverty, seeking a better life. They have far more in
> >common with the passengers on the Mayflower than the overfed, overweight,
> >self-satisfied, self-righteous, tax-paying, groundhogs sitting behind their
> >computers and filling the Net with wannabe hogwash, boasting about their
> >ancestor's deeds and imagining themselves to be their spiritual heirs.
>
> So coming from poverty is a qualification for living
> in space, not technical knowledge? I guess we should
> man nuclear submarines with whatever poor boat people
> we can locate. Two groups of my ancestors were in
> North America before the Mayflower [German and Native
> American] but that has nothing to do with anything.

Technical knowledge is and should be the main requirement.

> >Colonists don't build ships. They colonize. Or die
> >trying.
>
> It is not obvious at this point who will build the
> ships. I can assure you that my Native American
> ancestors got here with no government involvement,
> by their own means. In 1610 fur trapping private
> interests brought one of my German ancestors.

Does it really matter who builds the ships?

> >The ones with nothing to lose.
> >And that means NOT you.
>
> Unless they have the private means to get into
> space [rich with something to loose] they will
> be working for someone. Being poor with nothing
> to loose is in no way a qualification for being
> hired for space employment. Someone who is
> qualified no longer has nothing to loose and is
> very employable at good wages in any number of
> jobs.

I'm sure if they were offered the chance to get qualifications and then go into
space they would jump at it. Particulary if they are young.

> It will be motivated, educated, well trained
> people who will move into space [no class warfare
> requirement]. Qualified motivated people can come
> from many places. I knew several technical
> U.S. Air Force Officers who had come from 3rd
> world nations as children and were more than
> qualified to become space settlers. I have known
> many educated people and many engineers who came
> from all parts of the world both rich and poor.
> Qualified is qualified. One of my civilian Air Force
> engineering friends did indeed come to the United
> States as a boat-person. He would have as much
> to risk going into space as anyone coming from
> a much hated overweight white European American
> background. I am hearing Americans being hated
> for their success, not for any rational reason.
> My boat-person friend and his whole family are
> now successful Americans, are they to be hated
> as well, or is hate reserved for overweight
> white successful Americans?

Actually to be more accurate the reason people hate the US is because they are
an arrogant and irresponsible superpower. It's a pretty rational reason
actually. The downright offensive blabbering of some yanks that the US is the
"worlds greatest democracy", "best country in the world", "land of the 'free'"
etc, etc doesn't help either. When one looks at social problems around the
world they can often be traced to US foreign policies. CIA haven't helped out
either.

Fact is that anti-american ideology in its moderate form (meaning no crashing
airliners into buildings) is actually quite rational. Outside the United
States you are often seen as being self-rightous and overly patriotic (US
patriotism is pretty damn close to ultra-nationalism).

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ryan Healey wrote:

> Actually to be more accurate the reason people hate the US is
> because they are an arrogant

We do have a reputation around the world for arrogance. I regret to
say that it is largely earned.

> and irresponsible

We could go around and around about that (the US has been
irresponsible at times, but then who hasn't), and whether or not US
irrespnsibility is any worse than anybody else's, but as that would
serve no purpose, I'll leave it alone.

> superpower.

Yes, that bothers a lot of people. There is always some resentment
towards whoever is on top.

> It's a pretty rational reason actually.

Er...

> The downright offensive blabbering of some yanks that the US is the
> "worlds greatest democracy", "best country in the world", "land of
> the 'free'" etc, etc doesn't help either.

You mean people in other countries don't say nice things about their
country? Or is it only bad if the US does it?

> When one looks at social problems around the world they can often
> be traced to US foreign policies. CIA haven't helped out either.

I actually happen to agree with this (to a point). We have the idea
of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" WAY too far. It gave us
Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega, Osama bin Laudin, and
the Gods know who else.

> Fact is that anti-american ideology in its moderate form (meaning
> no crashing airliners into buildings) is actually quite rational.

I'm not sure what purpose would be served by bad-mouthing any country
that hasn't commited some overt act against me or mine. Or
how 'rational' that is. Something to think about.

> Outside the United States you are often seen as being self-rightous

It would help if more Americans would spend some time outside the
US. It would more of us to realize

a) we are not the only movers and shakers on this planet (yes, there
are successful businesses and world-class sports team in the rest of
the world, too), and

b) we don't have it nearly as bad as some of us seem to think that we
do. *That* is the arrogance that ticks of THIS particular American.

Probably, these two lessons would be learned from different nations
(i.e., Japan & Sudan).

> and overly patriotic (US patriotism is pretty damn close to ultra-
> nationalism).

I'm sure that every other nation on Earth is filled with citizens
that have no pride at all in their country... not!

Xenophile (who has posted some stuff about weightless gymnastics over
this an on-topic post!)

--- Xenophile wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., Ryan Healey wrote:
>
> > Actually to be more accurate the reason people hate the US is
> > because they are an arrogant
>
> We do have a reputation around the world for arrogance. I regret to
> say that it is largely earned.
>
> > and irresponsible
>
> We could go around and around about that (the US has been
> irresponsible at times, but then who hasn't), and whether or not US
> irrespnsibility is any worse than anybody else's, but as that would
> serve no purpose, I'll leave it alone.

You are correct about no one ever avoiding being irresponsible. The point I
was making was that the irresposible actions by the US were not few in number
but seem to occur with regularity. It could just be that the US system is too
influenced by corporations wanting money (who's 'American interests' are they
protecting when they declear war on some place with a lot of oil?).

> > superpower.
>
> Yes, that bothers a lot of people. There is always some resentment
> towards whoever is on top.

The fact that the US is a superpower isn't what causes the resentment. It's
the irresponssibilty of it that does.

> > It's a pretty rational reason actually.
>
> Er...
>
> > The downright offensive blabbering of some yanks that the US is the
> > "worlds greatest democracy", "best country in the world", "land of
> > the 'free'" etc, etc doesn't help either.
>
> You mean people in other countries don't say nice things about their
> country? Or is it only bad if the US does it?

Yes, but of the 'important' nations only the US is where there is a very vocal
ultra-nationalistic culture in some parts of the nation.

> > When one looks at social problems around the world they can often
> > be traced to US foreign policies. CIA haven't helped out either.
>
> I actually happen to agree with this (to a point). We have the idea
> of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" WAY too far. It gave us
> Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega, Osama bin Laudin, and
> the Gods know who else.

Interesting to think that that whole Iran theocracy thing was caused by the US
too. After the earlier action the CIA took backfired.

> > Fact is that anti-american ideology in its moderate form (meaning
> > no crashing airliners into buildings) is actually quite rational.
>
> I'm not sure what purpose would be served by bad-mouthing any country
> that hasn't commited some overt act against me or mine. Or
> how 'rational' that is. Something to think about.

Those who realise the problems of the US and are moderate would prefer the US
to change and tend to have something against the US. I don't see anything
irrational about that. Actions don't need to be overt for opposition to the
source of them to be rational.

> > Outside the United States you are often seen as being self-rightous
>
> It would help if more Americans would spend some time outside the
> US. It would more of us to realize

That is the real problem. Quite a lot of people in the US probably don't even
know that there are other countries (maybe that's hyperbole).

> a) we are not the only movers and shakers on this planet (yes, there
> are successful businesses and world-class sports team in the rest of
> the world, too), and
>
> b) we don't have it nearly as bad as some of us seem to think that we
> do. *That* is the arrogance that ticks of THIS particular American.

You could have worse and the world could do a lot worse. But that is always
the case no matter how bad a government is.

> Probably, these two lessons would be learned from different nations
> (i.e., Japan & Sudan).
>
> > and overly patriotic (US patriotism is pretty damn close to ultra-
> > nationalism).
>
> I'm sure that every other nation on Earth is filled with citizens
> that have no pride at all in their country... not!

I don't see anything wrong with having pride in one's country. I just think
that those who go on and on about their country being the "best country in the
world", "only one that matters" (there are people in the US who seem to believe
that), etc to be a bit too nationalistic and often don't appear to know that
other countries have rights to.