OrbHab>Spacesettlers
Re: Futuof Space Colonization (And why do we always keep going into politics and economics?)
# 2899 bybestonnet_00@... on May 29, 2002, 12:24 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
The problem I see with needing a non-zero sum system to go into space is that
one of the reasons we want to go into space is to get a non-zero sum system
(which was one of Dr. O'Neil's objectives with the space settlement concept).
A mixture of government and corpoate funding might be able to do it although
only after something that requires a significant human presence in space is
making a good profit. I wouldn't cound on only one of them doing it alone.
Corporations can barely see past the next FY let alone the 22 years the NASA
Ames Stanford study said would be required to build the first one. At least
not in the amounts that'd be needed. Governments have trouble looking past the
next election so we'd have some problems.
Ultimately it comes down to our civilisation having a bias towards the short
term instead of the long term.
--- Thetis Reticulum wrote:
# 2900 byomni@... on May 29, 2002, 10:48 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: "Ryan Healey"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Future of Space Colonization (And why do we
always keep going into politics and economics?)
> A mixture of government and corpoate funding might be able to do it
although
> only after something that requires a significant human presence in space
is
> making a good profit. I wouldn't cound on only one of them doing it
alone.
> Corporations can barely see past the next FY let alone the 22 years the
NASA
> Ames Stanford study said would be required to build the first one. At
least
> not in the amounts that'd be needed. Governments have trouble looking
past the
> next election so we'd have some problems.
>
Only democratic governments. In China, for instance, I would guess that the
policy for the ongoing space program will last as much as the current
leadership of the country - and that duration is not limited by elections.
(...)
Lucio Coelho
# 2901 byRavenart@... on May 30, 2002, 12:34 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
In a message dated 5/29/02 6:50:32 PM, omni@... writes:
past the
> next election so we'd have some problems.
>
Only democratic governments. In China, for instance, I would guess that the
policy for the ongoing space program will last as much as the current
leadership of the country - and that duration is not limited by elections. >>
That is right. There is a new book called Democracy: The God that Failed by
a political economist Hans Hermann Hoppe in which he compared the democracy
and kingship. The author is a free market anarchist-paleoconservative from
Germany, so he dosn't support any of them. I hasn't read it but I has
followed the discussion via book review. Beyond is a review by a
paleoconservative. For the record, I am individualist and free market
anarchist.
===============
No-Think Nation VI: Destroying the West with Political Correctness
By Paul Craig Roberts
(http://www.vdare.com/roberts/no_think6.htm)
Does democracy undermine a countrys future by shortening the time-preference
of rulers? Does racial diversity produce conflict? Are Americas two
greatest strengths in fact the countrys two greatest weaknesses?
In an important new book, Democracy: The God That Failed political economist
Hans Hermann Hoppe makes the case that democracy causes rulers to use policy
for their short-term gains at the expense of the long-term welfare of the
country.
A king or hereditary line of rulers has a long-term view, because he and his
heirs have a proprietary interest in the country. Although all kings will not
be well-informed or in possession of good judgment, their proprietary
interest causes hereditary rulers to pay attention to the repercussions of
their actions on the economic, social and cultural strength of their country.
A democracy, on the other hand, is ruled by temporary and interchangeable
caretakers, who have no proprietary interest in the country. Their ability to
exploit the country to their advantage is limited to their uncertain term of
office. The results are shortsighted or present-oriented policies, which
benefit the office holder at the long-term expense of the country.
The longer democracy exists, the more damage will be done to law, property,
culture, family, and moral values by the musical chair system of rotating
rulers guided by short-term interest. As redistribution expands, the
incentive for businessmen, judges, and consumers to take a long-term view is
systematically reduced. Business time horizons shrink to three months, saving
rates fall and debt levels rise as shortsighted rule reduces government to
income and wealth confiscation.
The prevailing incentive for citizens becomes to over-consume income and to
be a net debtor, as wealth is targeted for exploitation both by government
and lawyers.
Not a cheerful analysis. Before dismissing it, sit back and make your list of
government policies that take a long-term view to actually promote the
general welfare. In the past 102 years, only two come readily to mind:
President Reagans supply-side policy, which cured stagflation by
overthrowing Keynesian short-term demand management, and President Reagans
decision to abandon containment and actively work to hasten the fall of
the Soviet Union.
An honest look at democracys great victories shows them to be unmitigated
disasters. The Civil Rights Act destroyed freedom of conscience, voluntary
association, and equality in law, replacing it with status-based privileges
from the feudal past. Busing and federal aid destroyed public education. The
Great Society spending programs eroded family and encouraged public
dependency.
The New Deal destroyed accountable law by forcing Congress to delegate
lawmaking power to unelected federal bureaucrats. The Social Security Act
substituted an intergenerational Ponzi scheme, which is entirely dependent on
favorable demographics, for individual saving. The Federal Reserve Act gave us
the Great Depression. American entry into W.W.I, which was to make the world
safe for democracy, resulted in Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.
Yet, all these disastrous policies greatly benefited the politicians who
inflicted them.
When democracy is mixed with racial and cultural diversity, the combination
of short time horizons with internal conflict maximizes weakness, regardless
of accumulated scientific and technological skills.
In another important recent book, Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism,
Scandinavian scholar Tatu Vanhanen argues that group conflict is biologically
or racially based.
Professor Vanhanen constructs an Index of Ethnic Heterogeneity, [RTF] a
measure of ethnic, tribal, racial, linguistic and religious diversity, for
every country in the world with a population larger than one million. He then
constructs an Index of Ethnic Conflict [RTF] and finds a strong correlation
between the scores of the two indexes.
In our world of politically correct scholarship, it is almost obligatory for
sociologists to assume that the source of conflict is oppression or
injustice. Prof. Vanhanen dismisses these explanations as worn-out
Marxist propaganda.
Conflict, he concludes, comes from ethnic nepotism. It is natural to the
human species to favor relatives over people who are unrelated to us.
Extending this principle, people care more for those genetically related to
them than for others. Of all chasms that separate people, race is the hardest
to bridge.
Multiracial or multitribal states break up, because assimilation across
racial boundaries is rare.
The only solution to the conflict is secession and separation.
Professor Vanhanen notes that the belief that racial diversity is a strength
is limited to Western European countries, the U.S. and Canada. The belief is
so obviously at odds with the experience of the rest of the world that only
people brainwashed by political correctness can believe it.
By infusing themselves with massive racial diversity, the countries of the
West are ceasing to be nation-states and are planting seeds of future
conflict without precedent in world history.
Nonthinking civilizations are doomed. The weakness of Western intellectual
thought is apparent when the entire edifice can be challenged by two books.
Is the West too politically correct to free itself from the black hole of
No-Think?
Paul Craig Roberts is the author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How
Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of
Justice.
COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
May 28, 2002
===============
Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one,
He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear."
----Thomas Jefferson
# 2902 bybestonnet_00@... on May 30, 2002, 9:45 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
True. Undemocratic governments do tend to have their leadership lasting
longer.
likely. Afterall the USSR managed to beat the US into space and if it weren't
for all the problems they had with their moon rocket they could have beaten the
US to the moon.
--- Lucio_de_Souza_Coelho wrote:
# 2903 bythetis_ii_reticulum@... on May 30, 2002, 3:24 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I've read this book: what a lot of nonsense. The
author claims to be an economist, yet he is unable to
distinguish between capitalism and democracy (although
he is able to distinguish feudalism, of which he
supports). His vision of the future is essentially a
neo-fascist king and aristocracy.
--- Ravenart@... wrote:
In a message dated 5/29/02 6:50:32 PM,
omni@... writes:
past the
> next election so we'd have some problems.
>
Only democratic governments. In China, for instance, I
would guess that the
policy for the ongoing space program will last as much
as the current
leadership of the country - and that duration is not
limited by elections. >>
That is right. There is a new book called
Democracy: The God that Failed by
a political economist Hans Hermann Hoppe in which he
compared the democracy
and kingship. The author is a free market
anarchist-paleoconservative from
Germany, so he dosn't support any of them. I
hasn't read it but I has
followed the discussion via book review. Beyond
is a review by a
paleoconservative. For the record, I am
individualist and free market
anarchist.
===============
No-Think Nation VI: Destroying the West with Political
Correctness
By Paul Craig Roberts
(
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/no_think6.htm)
Does democracy undermine a countrys future by
shortening the time-preference
of rulers? Does racial diversity produce conflict? Are
Americas two
greatest strengths in fact the countrys two
greatest weaknesses?
In an important new book, Democracy: The God That
Failed political economist
Hans Hermann Hoppe makes the case that democracy
causes rulers to use policy
for their short-term gains at the expense of the
long-term welfare of the
country.
A king or hereditary line of rulers has a long-term
view, because he and his
heirs have a proprietary interest in the country.
Although all kings will not
be well-informed or in possession of good judgment,
their proprietary
interest causes hereditary rulers to pay attention to
the repercussions of
their actions on the economic, social and cultural
strength of their country.
A democracy, on the other hand, is ruled by temporary
and interchangeable
caretakers, who have no proprietary interest in the
country. Their ability to
exploit the country to their advantage is limited to
their uncertain term of
office. The results are shortsighted or
present-oriented policies, which
benefit the office holder at the long-term expense of
the country.
The longer democracy exists, the more damage will be
done to law, property,
culture, family, and moral values by the musical chair
system of rotating
rulers guided by short-term interest. As
redistribution expands, the
incentive for businessmen, judges, and consumers to
take a long-term view is
systematically reduced. Business time horizons shrink
to three months, saving
rates fall and debt levels rise as shortsighted rule
reduces government to
income and wealth confiscation.
The prevailing incentive for citizens becomes to
over-consume income and to
be a net debtor, as wealth is targeted for
exploitation both by government
and lawyers.
Not a cheerful analysis. Before dismissing it, sit
back and make your list of
government policies that take a long-term view to
actually promote the
general welfare. In the past 102 years, only two
come readily to mind:
President Reagans supply-side policy, which cured
stagflation by
overthrowing Keynesian short-term demand management,
and President Reagans
decision to abandon containment and actively
work to hasten the fall of
the Soviet Union.
An honest look at democracys great victories
shows them to be unmitigated
disasters. The Civil Rights Act destroyed freedom of
conscience, voluntary
association, and equality in law, replacing it with
status-based privileges
from the feudal past. Busing and federal aid destroyed
public education. The
Great Society spending programs eroded family and
encouraged public
dependency.
The New Deal destroyed accountable law by forcing
Congress to delegate
lawmaking power to unelected federal bureaucrats.
The Social Security Act
substituted an intergenerational Ponzi scheme, which
is entirely dependent on
favorable demographics, for individual saving. The
Federal Reserve Act gave us
the Great Depression. American entry into W.W.I,
which was to make the world
safe for democracy, resulted in Lenin, Stalin,
Hitler, and Mao.
Yet, all these disastrous policies greatly benefited
the politicians who
inflicted them.
When democracy is mixed with racial and cultural
diversity, the combination
of short time horizons with internal conflict
maximizes weakness, regardless
of accumulated scientific and technological
skills.
In another important recent book, Conflicts Explained
by Ethnic Nepotism,
Scandinavian scholar Tatu Vanhanen argues that group
conflict is biologically
or racially based.
Professor Vanhanen constructs an Index of Ethnic
Heterogeneity, [RTF] a
measure of ethnic, tribal, racial, linguistic and
religious diversity, for
every country in the world with a population larger
than one million. He then
constructs an Index of Ethnic Conflict [RTF] and finds
a strong correlation
between the scores of the two indexes.
In our world of politically correct scholarship, it is
almost obligatory for
sociologists to assume that the source of conflict is
oppression or
injustice. Prof. Vanhanen dismisses these
explanations as worn-out
Marxist propaganda.
Conflict, he concludes, comes from ethnic
nepotism. It is natural to the
human species to favor relatives over people who are
unrelated to us.
Extending this principle, people care more for those
genetically related to
them than for others. Of all chasms that separate
people, race is the hardest
to bridge.
Multiracial or multitribal states break up, because
assimilation across
racial boundaries is rare.
The only solution to the conflict is secession and
separation.
Professor Vanhanen notes that the belief that racial
diversity is a strength
is limited to Western European countries, the U.S. and
Canada. The belief is
so obviously at odds with the experience of the rest
of the world that only
people brainwashed by political correctness can
believe it.
By infusing themselves with massive racial diversity,
the countries of the
West are ceasing to be nation-states and are planting
seeds of future
conflict without precedent in world history.
Nonthinking civilizations are doomed. The weakness of
Western intellectual
thought is apparent when the entire edifice can be
challenged by two books.
Is the West too politically correct to free itself
from the black hole of
No-Think?
Paul Craig Roberts is the author of The Tyranny of
Good Intentions : How
Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the
Constitution in the Name of
Justice.
COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
May 28, 2002
===============
Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
http://www.ravenartstudio.com">www.ravenartstudio.com
"Question with boldness even the existence of
God; because if there be one,
He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that
of blindfolded Fear."
----Thomas Jefferson