Ants Thread and other Replies

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

May is the right word. A classic non-correlation is the one where
short skirts and earthquakes made it look like shorting hemlines
caused earthquakes.

When they talk about the crime rate, it is actually the reported crime
rate. It is very hard to get a handle on the computer crime rate
because many businesses do not like to report a crime that will make
them look undependable to the public.

Being non-religious myself, I haven't paid much attention to such
things.

>
> 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?

No, because I believe the rule that there is an exception to every
rule is the exception to itself.
>
> 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.

I'd say next to impossible. But, as you may have noticed, I don't
share your faith in the law.

>
> 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.

Unfortunately, a computer model is only as good as its inputs. Forget
one and you do't have a reliable output.

Back in the 60s or 70s, I had a history prof who told of a professor
he had in college. This fellow rated Supreme Court Justices' rulings
on a scale of 1 to 10. He fed all the these into the computer which
added them up, then divided to get an average.

The fellow then stated that the computer proved that one justice was
more liberal than another. All the computer did was reflect his
opinions.

As I told my prof, it was an example of GIGO__Garbage In, Garbage Out.
>
> 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).
>
I firmly believe that in a hundred years our descendents will regard
our misuse of the automobile the major insanity of our age.

> 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.
>
Let's make that usually. But tickets can be written for that or
dozens of other things that many of us don't even notice. Most people
get used to car and don't notice such minor things.

> 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.
>
I have not noticed any such thing. But I may miss that part of the
newspaper. I don't watch much tv either.

> 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).
>

I see we are talking at cross purposes. I refer to speed traps as
towns that get a good share of revenue from traffic tickets. So they
enforce the laws much more rigidly. As well as using tricks like
having the signs hard to see or at the foot of an incline.

I am talking about towns whose enforcement is much more rigid than
their neighbors.

Cameras where drivers know the cameras are there will cause most
drivers to drive within limits. So will dummy police cars.

I am talking about hidden cameras and police cars where the object is
to make money, not enforce laws.

> 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?
>

Got it from several published sources about 5 or 6 years ago, before I
went online. I'd have to look up the right folder and I'm not sure
where it is. But I doubt if OHSA hadn't done the job between 70 and
95, that it would start doing so since.

> 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.

I got my electrical engineering degree in 1968. Took a five hour
stats course. Got my math degree in 1972. Took the second stats
course a year or two earlier. By then, there were two 4 hours
courses.

So I actually had one more hour of Stats than the rest.

Most of the math courses I took were more abstract than Stats. We did
not have a lot of applied math.

>
> 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.
>

Possibly. But some of the raw data may have been omitted or changed
before it got to the final state. Too, the accident rate only
includes Reported accidents. Plants may cover up minor accidents that
make them look bad. As much from their bosses as from OHSA.

Too, you are getting your stats from only one source. It would be
better to try at least three.

> 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).
>
There are many people that are better at such things than I am. There
are times I wonder if I'm too straight forward to function in today's
society. (only 61, but I feel much older.)

> 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).
>
My major problem is that I have too many doubts and uncertainities.
It makes decision making difficult.

> 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.
>
It's nice we agree on something.

> 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.
>
That is why we have lawyers and judges. English is a very flexible
and inexact language. But it reflects the human beings that created
it down the ages.

> 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.
>
It is hard to be selfish when you need other people. Unfortunately a
few humans aren't that way.

> 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.
>
At least we will have a start. I would expect the laws of a colony to
evolve.

> 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.
>
And you get after me for being too sure of myself. I'm pretty sure
that there have been other factors than going off the gold standard
that have prevented depressions.

A big one has been that the government is actively messing with the
economy. Setting interest rates is one thing.

But I'm not good at discussing economics. I think it works by magic.
As long as you can get most of the people to believe in the economy,
it works.

> Have a look at http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-gold.htm for some
more
> information on why gold sucks as money.
>
My main worry is depending on unstable countries like Russia and South
Africa.

> 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.

As well as law books. For many years, Colliers or a similar mag had a
regular column featuring laws that were so obsolete that they were
silly. I used to get a newsletter (Bizarre News??) that regularly ran
a listing of similar outdated laws.

> 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).
>
Poul Anderson in his science fiction The By-Worlder (70s AMAZING?)
pictured a future US that had enclaves of different societies within
the regular nation.

> 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.
>
Let's hear it for the Space Patrol! (I grew up with PLANET STORIES.)

Rick