Perceptual violence

Hi Arlin,

Re your comment, "All the groups should work together for maximum results." Total agreement! That is what SDC is all about - though in our case we are about doing so among UK groups and UK-based groups, such as UK branches of US space societies like the Mars Soc UK, etc. However, there would be nothing that would please me more than to see a similar set-up getting going in other countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc. Then we could create a really international SDC and all work together.

Thank you very much for having made me think, during our recent discussion. There is hardly anything better any friend can do for another than that.

Is there any chance you might be able to make the potential meeting in Florida next March? If so, I would very much enjoy meeting you. Mind you, that one also goes for all other members of the Yahoo Space Settlers!

Best wishes, Andy.

From: arlin@...
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, October 27, 2001 8:06 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Perceptual violence

Dear Andy

Thanks for posting your message on the SDC group.
Good comments by both you and Stephen.
All the groups should work together for maximum results.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Andy Nimmo" wrote:
> Hi Arlin,
>
> It seems that your space settlement is strictly for Arlin's
>acolytes only.

As I said:
>> No-one's forced, and very few will choose, to leave Earth.
Space travel is not for inflexible couch-potatoes, no matter
how "nice" we would like it to be.

>Everybody does and thinks as you say or else! Even if the 'or else'
>in this case is nothing more drastic than being sent home.

The last thing I want is people in space who aren't eager
to go, or to force someone to leave who wants to stay.

> ..."psychology is a science". In most Anglo-Saxon nations it isn't.
>On the Western European continent however they like to go by
>experiments that can be repeated anywhere and observations likewise.

Getting different results depending on which brain, which day,
how much was had for lunch, ...

> However, while it is too long ago for me to remember the magazines
>or particular article therein that you have objected to, it did come
>from continental Western Europe, not from the airy fairy UK or US
>versions of psychology.

Yes, US psychology seems fairly airy fairy from what I've seen.

> You say, "No-one's forced, " which is blatantly untrue. Everyone
>who goes has no other option but to see as they perceive.

*I* can choose the interpretation I give my perceptions.
It's especially blatantly true because I was talking about
being forced to *go*, not to perceive:
>> No-one's forced, and very few will choose, to leave Earth.
>> Those who can't adapt will return to Earth. Those who even
>> *think* they can't aren't likely to leave in the first place.

>If only optimists go (or only pessimists) there will be no dichotomy
>and the problem will not arise. However, the space settlements I
>would like to see should be for everyone. That to my mind, means
>they should be built to be healthy for everyone.

*Sounds* very nice and liberal and socialist, but equal rights
has *never* been able to guarantee equal results.
Evolution still works.

> You say, "Colorblindness is *not* a choice, unlike where one
>lives." and that is the point I am myself trying to make. In a space
>settlement of either the torus or sphere, up or down is not a choice
>either, no matter where therein you happen to live. In a cylinder it
>can be, because you do have the lengthways option.

"Up" is A) under gravity, away from the center of mass
B) under spin, toward the axis of rotation (cylinder or not), or
C) in free-fall, any way you choose.

> Sending everyone not of your ilk home would be to waste humanity's
>great asset of variety of outlook - and that would greatly inhibit
>the adaptability of the group as a whole.

Again, *I* do not send them, they self-select. If motion
or a view in space makes them too ill to report their outlook,
it is possible their staying on Earth may *strengthen*
the space-based gene pool. The truth of this hypothesis
is irrelevant if there is no effective way for them to
survive in the hostile environment of space.

> On Osama, his outlook is a direct result of his perceptions. What
>else?

No. It's his *interpretations* of his perceptions;
and his (im)moral judgements based on his (mis)interpretations.

> ...Osama...unhealthy...psychology
>
>> "If you don't like a view, rest your eyes elsewhere--adapt!!"
>Thanks for the kind suggestion.
Just good advice on staying out of the clutches of evolution.
If you are in danger of falling, don't look down!

>I regret that even though I spent 20 years in the travel business
>(and am now a travel writer - so still getting about a bit) I've
>only managed to adapt to some 45 countries in Europe, the Americas,
>Africa, the Middle and Far East so far, how many have you adapted to?

OK, you win--expert traveler; I have only *been* in 8 countries.
(I did thoroughly enjoy and adapt to *all* of them.)

> All the best, Andy.

You too! Thanks for a good debate.

Now let's build some settlements!
One problem with a 1.6 km diameter rotating ring is the
forces will tear it apart unless it is axially supported.
(Run cables along the diameters to hold it together.)
Next, air pressure will try to blow out the end caps.
Rather than run more cables parallel to the axes, it
might be better to have nested cylinders open down the
axis (except for the crosswise cables). If the circumferential
hallways had sideways jogs every 20 meters or so, you
couldn't even tell they "curved up". I would *not*
suggest this! I would rather be able to jog around
the entire circumference without jerking sideways.
I would also like to be able to look up through windows
and see the other side of the cylinder, as well as look
out the ends to see the stars.

Beautiful! I've already adapted to this.

Yours, Arlin

Re your comment, "All the groups should work together for maximum results." Total agreement! That is what SDC is all about - though in our case we are about doing so among UK groups and UK-based groups, such as UK branches of US space societies like the Mars Soc UK, etc. However, there would be nothing that would please me more than to see a similar set-up getting going in other countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc. Then we could create a really international SDC and all work together.

Thank you very much for having made me think, during our recent discussion. There is hardly anything better any friend can do for another than that.

Is there any chance you might be able to make the potential meeting in Florida next March? If so, I would very much enjoy meeting you. Mind you, that one also goes for all other members of the Yahoo Space Settlers!

Best wishes, Andy.

From:
arlin@...
<
arlin@...
>
To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
<
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>
Date:
Saturday, October 27, 2001 8:06 AM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: Perceptual violence
Dear Andy
Thanks for posting your message on the SDC group.
Good comments by both you and Stephen.
All the groups should work together for maximum results.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Andy Nimmo"
> Hi Arlin,
>
> It seems that your space settlement is strictly for Arlin's
>acolytes only.
As I said:
>> No-one's forced, and very few will choose, to leave Earth.
Space travel is not for inflexible couch-potatoes, no matter
how "nice" we would like it to be.
>Everybody does and thinks as you say or else! Even if the 'or else'
>in this case is nothing more drastic than being sent home.
The last thing I want is people in space who aren't eager
to go, or to force someone to leave who wants to stay.
> ..."psychology is a science". In most Anglo-Saxon nations it isn't.
>On the Western European continent however they like to go by
>experiments that can be repeated anywhere and observations likewise.
Getting different results depending on which brain, which day,
how much was had for lunch, ...
> However, while it is too long ago for me to remember the magazines
>or particular article therein that you have objected to, it did come
>from continental Western Europe, not from the airy fairy UK or US
>versions of psychology.
Yes, US psychology seems fairly airy fairy from what I've seen.
> You say, "No-one's forced, " which is blatantly untrue. Everyone
>who goes has no other option but to see as they perceive.
*I* can choose the interpretation I give my perceptions.
It's especially blatantly true because I was talking about
being forced to *go*, not to perceive:
>> No-one's forced, and very few will choose, to leave Earth.
>> Those who can't adapt will return to Earth. Those who even
>> *think* they can't aren't likely to leave in the first place.
>If only optimists go (or only pessimists) there will be no dichotomy
>and the problem will not arise. However, the space settlements I
>would like to see should be for everyone. That to my mind, means
>they should be built to be healthy for everyone.
*Sounds* very nice and liberal and socialist, but equal rights
has *never* been able to guarantee equal results.
Evolution still works.
> You say, "Colorblindness is *not* a choice, unlike where one
>lives." and that is the point I am myself trying to make. In a space
>settlement of either the torus or sphere, up or down is not a choice
>either, no matter where therein you happen to live. In a cylinder it
>can be, because you do have the lengthways option.
"Up" is A) under gravity, away from the center of mass
B) under spin, toward the axis of rotation (cylinder or not), or
C) in free-fall, any way you choose.
> Sending everyone not of your ilk home would be to waste humanity's
>great asset of variety of outlook - and that would greatly inhibit
>the adaptability of the group as a whole.
Again, *I* do not send them, they self-select. If motion
or a view in space makes them too ill to report their outlook,
it is possible their staying on Earth may *strengthen*
the space-based gene pool. The truth of this hypothesis
is irrelevant if there is no effective way for them to
survive in the hostile environment of space.
> On Osama, his outlook is a direct result of his perceptions. What
>else?
No. It's his *interpretations* of his perceptions;
and his (im)moral judgements based on his (mis)interpretations.
> ...Osama...unhealthy...psychology
>
>> "If you don't like a view, rest your eyes elsewhere--adapt!!"
>Thanks for the kind suggestion.
Just good advice on staying out of the clutches of evolution.
If you are in danger of falling, don't look down!
>I regret that even though I spent 20 years in the travel business
>(and am now a travel writer - so still getting about a bit) I've
>only managed to adapt to some 45 countries in Europe, the Americas,
>Africa, the Middle and Far East so far, how many have you adapted to?
OK, you win--expert traveler; I have only *been* in 8 countries.
(I did thoroughly enjoy and adapt to *all* of them.)
> All the best, Andy.
You too! Thanks for a good debate.
Now let's build some settlements!
One problem with a 1.6 km diameter rotating ring is the
forces will tear it apart unless it is axially supported.
(Run cables along the diameters to hold it together.)
Next, air pressure will try to blow out the end caps.
Rather than run more cables parallel to the axes, it
might be better to have nested cylinders open down the
axis (except for the crosswise cables). If the circumferential
hallways had sideways jogs every 20 meters or so, you
couldn't even tell they "curved up". I would *not*
suggest this! I would rather be able to jog around
the entire circumference without jerking sideways.
I would also like to be able to look up through windows
and see the other side of the cylinder, as well as look
out the ends to see the stars.
Beautiful! I've already adapted to this.
Yours, Arlin
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
.