Ants Thread and other Replies

Brad Walsh Wrote:
> I call people who believe there is no common good, and that all people are
> only out for their own self interest "sociopaths," in the sense of people
> who work against society (what I would call society).

People who think that they are the only one that matters have this tendency of
causing a lot of crime. Good idea to put them in mental homes or some place
like that.

Brad Walsh Wrote:
> sociopaths after all make darned good politicians
Too true.

> a single, unified Islamic nation, from North Africa to the Phillippines,
> although one committed to peaceful coexistence, would wipe so many of today's

> conflicts off the front page for good, and would be a fascinating experiment
in
> whether a nation guided by religious principles can truly be more ethical
> than those we have today.

So far nations guided by religious principles have proven to be less ethical
then those guided by secular principles. This could be due to the fact that
the ones controlled by religion tended to be dictatorships or monarchies
whereas the secular ones tended to be democracies. A democractic theocracy
would be interesting although since none of any size have existed to my
knowledge I don't think I'd be able to say anything on whether it would work
with much accuracy.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Religion does make some people worse. It makes others better. I'd be
> interested in seeing proof that there are more bad than good. I am afraid
that
> the bad gets more press than the good. But that is not proof.
There is a correlation between churchgoing rate and murder rate in the US. The
United States also has one of the highest crime rates of the industrialised
world along with a high churchgoing rate. Other countries with lower
churchgoing rates have much lower crime rates so there definately is a
correleation between religion and crime. The areas of the US where religion is
more liberal have a much lower murder rate then the more religiously
conservative areas. School Shootings in the US have been mostly occuring in
the bible belt.

Not proof of cause but does show that they may be related.

Now given the violence inherent in Xian scripture and also the historical track
record of religion it doesn't take much to conclude that religion is at least
partly responsible for crime. There are of course other factors and religion
may not be the only one but it isn't as ethical as most people think it is.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> I firmly believe the rule that there is an exception to every rule.

Then I assume you believe there is an exception to that rule as well?

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> This gets complicated. Your point is good. But suppose I have been
convicted
> of murder because I stuck pins in a voodoo doll I made of you. Or that I'm
> jailed away from society because I tell dirty jokes in public and pinch
women.

I said it would be complex and probably should have included extreamly hard.

But then again so is a lot of law making because it's just so hard to make the
law cover every eventuallity. Thus the importance of precedents. I suspect
we're going to have a very hard time actually getting such a right defined even
though it should be simple.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Also innocent people being framed by police to get a quick conviction is not
> unknown in our present society.

It's rare but it has been known to happen.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Assuming that such a thing is possible. I'm afraid that with people you'll
> always have too many variables.

True, but reducing the number to deal with could help. Being able to control
at least a few of the most important variables would be helpful but when you're
dealing with people it is still very hard. Computer models would be a good
tool for social science but they would only be able to deal with simplistic
abstrations of people. Glad I'm going into physics instead of humanities.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Nearly all of us can drive a car. I suppose you mean that most people
> cannot drive a car skillfully.

Can not drive a car safely would also be accurate. Although being able to
drive a car requires one to be able to do it safely which most people can't
seem to do (or if they can they don't do it).

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> I notice you avoid my point that there are so many laws regarding driving AND

> the condition of a car that it is very difficult to keep up with them. I
> gather a cracked taillight case is grounds for a ticket around here.

It's reasonable to expect people to fix any defects in their car such as
cracked taillights quickly. I don't think tickets are given out for that where
I am.

As for laws regarding driving. Most of them are either common sense or simply
obeying a sign. Not really all that hard. I don't know what it's like where
you are but where I am if there's a new road rule coming in quite a lot of
publicity is given to it to make sure people know about it.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Rick Brooks Wrote:
> > Some towns have speed traps and rigidly enforce speed limits. Most
towns
> don't.
> > Those that enforce the speed limits of course have safer roads.

Interesting assumption. I'd like to see proof.
OK.

In Victoria, Australia deaths fell 30% from 1989 to 1990. Speed cameras were
introduced there in late 1989. The number of people triggering the photo radar
went down 50% after only 3 months of use. In Norway it was found that using
speed cameras on sections of Rural Road reduced injury crashed by 20%.
Research from British Columbia, Canada shows that in the first year of using
speed cameras there is a 20% decrease in road deaths and 7.4% less crashes, a
10.5% decrease in daytime injuries has also been attributed to photo radar by
those researchers. I would say there is proof that enforcing speed limits
reduces deaths.
http://www.highwaysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/speed_lawenf.htm (Item 10).

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> The data I found said that the accident rate was nearly the same.

Then it may be wrong. Where did you get it from?

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> I have a degree in math and took 9 hours of Statistics in the process.

9 hours of stats for a maths degree? Considering it's a degree in maths you
should have had a lot more then that, unless it was a typo of some sort.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> I think you use the word "proves" very loosely. It is all too easy to weigh
> parts of your raw data differently. Or to define catagories so as to exclude

> inconvenient data.

"Following passage of the Occupational safety and Health Act in the early
1970s, the rate had declined from 11.0 in 1973 to 7.6 in 1983." Directly quoted
from my source at http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1998/11/art3full.pdf and given
the way the figure was determined I would say very accurate. The rates are
injuries and illnesses per 100 workers and are calculated using the same method
in each year. There is no weighing done, just every injury and illness is
added up and then divided by the size of the work-force. There are also no
categories defined during this to exclude inconvenient data.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> There is an old saying that figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

Those figures don't. But you can figure out how to claim they are (but not
very well).

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Unfortunately, it is not humanly possible to do so. We live in a very
> complicated world and there is always more information than we can process.
We
> must act on inadequate data. Our lives are too short to do otherwise. I am
> sure of very little.

No it isn't. But when it's not you should at least leave room for doubt. I am
aware that we must often act on inadequate data and if you read my posts you'll
often find me admiting that I really don't have much knowledge in a certain
area and also saying that I'm just making a best guess (covers me if I turn out
wrong).

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> There is always the possibility that all of this is a bad dream.
> Though I think such a possibility is next to zero, I could be wrong.

I would say the probability of it being a bad dream is very close to zero.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Really. I'd ask for proof, but you seem to think you've given proof.

Yes. That's because I have. The Bureau of Labour Statistics have actually
compiled the rates and provided them on the net.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1998/11/art3full.pdf has them in the first
paragraph. It also has a lot of other information you might be interested in.

> You do have a right to your opinion. Mine differs.

Yes, you opinion does differ.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> In my opinion, society is functioning worse than it used to and too many laws

> are a part of the reason. Prohibition caused contempt for the Law. Too many

> laws may be doing the same today.

Thing that must be remembered is that contempt for laws only exists when people
don't agree with the laws. If they agree with them they'll probably co-operate
with them. There are also instances in which people end up going along with
laws even if they don't agree with them just so they don't get fined, thrown in
jail, killed, whatever. In those cases following the law can become habit and
overtime people who at first hated the law think of it as a good idea and
support it. It's usually only when a law is unenforcable and unpopular that
contempt of it causes problems.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> I agree. But I'm afraid that we cannot agree on a definition of well
written.

I have a legal studies text book which states that laws should be clearly
expressed and easy to understand, able to be learnt, acceptable by teh
community, stable yet flexable, consistent, able to be enforce and able to
reflect changing values.

Easy to copy out of the text book (it was only almost word for word) but very
hard to actually do in real life.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Remember that the rather complicated language of legal documents is there to
> try to reduce the text to a single meaning. To turn out adocument that can't

> be misunderstood.

That's impossible to do.

About ethics one must remember that it isn't humans that are naturally selfish.
Only our genes and memes are. I think family behaviour disproves the humans
are selfish theory very well.

As for what the first colony will be like.

I'd expect it to be mostly controlled from earth with limited autonomy given to
an appointed leader or a committie of appointed leaders. This will likely be
the case for most early colonies (probably mostly Stanford Tori). Later on
we'll just have to wait but I wouldn't expect anything radically different from
what we have now. Maybe some differences because of scale and a few because of
the differences in the environment. Of course we do have to actually build it
first.

Cygonaut Wrote:
> I wouldn't be overly concerned how they govern themselves. This is their own

> concern anyway.

I agree with that.

Cygonaut Wrote:
> We have laws. They'll have understandings amongst themselves that may be
> somewhat beyond our grip, but will probably work best for them given their
> unique circumstances.

I'd say whatever understandings they have will probably be very similiar to the
ones we have. Afterall most of the work force will probably come from earth
and so be used to living under a legal system like what we have at the present
time. Also there will be high proportion of highly educated people going into
space because they are the ones that are going to be needed since the jobs that
would usually be done by drop-outs will instead be done by robots in space.
There is also a correleration between education level and income so those who
are highly educated are more likely to be able to afford to move to space.
This could have some interesting effects on society in space.

As for how colonies become self-governing I'm sure we can imagine a whole heap
of them but the ones that will be most important are:
* Colony built independantly
* Colony built by nation but given independance peacefully
* Colony built by nation but has revolt (could actually be non-violent
considering the power of computers)

Brad Walsh Wrote:
> If we don't think these matters through now, and have the social blueprints
> ready when the architectural ones are, then the backers would be free to
> imagine and then insert features of government most favorable to themselves.

Whether the ones we can come up with if we actually manage to agree on anything
will be used is another matter. Whether we can even agree enough to get
something is also something I have my doubts about.

Carl Mullin Wrote:
> Two noticable things that seperate common (tort) law from statist law is that

> resolutions are economic in nature; reinsitution rather than forceful
> punishment.

Statist law is based on common law. Tort law is not the same as common law
because common law also includes criminal law whereas Tort law is civil.

With punishments one must realise that often inprisonment isn't primarly to
punish an offender but insetad to isolate the offender from society thus
preventing that person from harming society for the duration of their sentence.
If people can be re-integrated back into society then we should try. But some
people just can't get along in society which is why we have prisons and mental
homes to isolate them.

Carl Mullin Wrote:
> A very good article about how to protect the value of money.

Actually a pile of crap.

Interesting how it says that economists said keep the gold standard yet that
wasn't done. Also interesting to see how the US economny improved when the
gold standard was gone.

Even more interesting is how leaving the gold standard to the history books
where it belongs has stopped depressions from occuring whereas under the gold
standard they were occuring in a cycle. If I had to choose between having a
gold standard or having no depressions I'd choose no depressions.

Have a look at http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-gold.htm for some more
information on why gold sucks as money.

In short Keynes did to economics what Darwin did to biology.

Also interesting is the part about the US consitition requiring payment in gold
or silver. Just consider that a relic that should've been removed a long time
ago. Such things are often left in consitutions.

Al Globus Wrote:
> For sea based colonies away from national control (and protection), be aware
> that piracy is alive and well in many parts of the world.

Yes. But it can be dealt with if enough about pirates is known.

If your using an old ship keep the engines working and just start to move. The
pirates will probably move onto another target since they know that you'll be
ready for them.

Al Globus Wrote:
> Be aware that anyone wanting to invade you will find a suitable
> 'justification.' Behind harmless does not stop invasions and oppression,
> consider Tibet. Also consider that the native American's were no threat to
> Europe. You'll need defense, which means you need government -- or something
> that acts the same. Sorry.
The best way would probably be to make sure you present no reason to be invaded
but that's pretty hard. If you build it where it has a chance to prosper your
going to have someone who'll want what you've got. If you don't want other
countries to want your 'land' then you'll have to build in a place that would
make it very hard to prosper. As for defence it may be possible to provide it
without government but it does seem highly unlikely as it's in the interests of
the individual to run away or co-operate with an invader rather then try to
fight (which would be almost certain death). If one were created you'd just
have to try to sign some kind of treaty with a nation that would be able to
protect you. It may be hard to find one that would be willing to sign a treaty
with an anarchist nation (ok, it's an oxymoron but so what?). Probably the
best idea if you have enough land would be to create a minarchist nation and an
anarchist one as well. This way what you could do would be to put the
anarchist nation in the middle and the minarchary around the outside thereby
allowing it to provide the defence since it can act like a government. This
has been suggested at http://libertariannation.org/a/f34l1.html although it was
written with the assumption that it would be built on land. Also the document
was written by a libertarian and intended to be read by libertians so
non-libertarians should be warned that it does speak as though libertarianism
is correct (regardless of whether it is or not).

Brad Walsh Wrote:
> unless you propose stocking your orbiting fish tank with people who are
> sensitive to that kind of thing.
Of course you'll probably still get quite a few people who aren't.

Steve Whitting Wrote:
> As part of the re-fit, I think that I'd want to add a dozen .50 cal. machine
> guns, a pair of 76mm deck guns, a few Stinger missile launchers and a
> well-equipped arms locker.

If you actually need the Stingers you're probably massively outgunned anyway.
There aren't any pirates that Stingers would actually be useful against
(although the 76 mm guns could come in handy provided you're sure the ship
they're pointed at is a pirate ship).

Steve Whitting Wrote:
> But seriously . . . will future space colonists eventually have to deal with
> real space pirates?

Probably. Piracy in space would have to be done somewhat differently then on
earth due to the vaccum but it'll appear eventually. Mike Combs (someone who
often posts here, and maintainer of the excellent Space Settlement FAQ)
actually wrote a story about it which you can read at
http://members.aol.com/howiecombs/havnrock.htm if you haven't already found it
by now.