Another Reason to Settle Space

I'm pretty sure this one isn't original with me, though.

I am very sympathetic to the basic all our eggs in one basket argument
recently recalled to our attention by Dr. Stephen Hawking.

I just wish to note a minor variation on that.

A handful of books have been published asking why China didn't continue
its forward march of progress, and retain the world leadership it had in
ancient times. Some put it down to the malign influence of using
characters instead of an alphabet to write with.

Recently, a book came out - actually written before September 11, 2001 -
asking what had gone wrong with the Islamic world, which also enjoyed
world leadership at one time.

This sort of theme, of course, is distressing to those who are strongly
committed to equality. A more politically-correct take on the question
was put forward by Jared Diamond in his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

While I oppose bigotry, I also see in political correctness much to
abhor; it often seems to result in a wilful blindness to reality.
Occasionally, though, it can lead to a fresh perspective and positive
results, and I believe this has happened in this case.

The main thesis of Jared Diamond's book is that societies with access to
rich and varied natural resources, but not varied in ways that lead to a
fragmentation that limits usefulness, will progress faster in technology
and civilization than societies with a more limited range. This seems
quite reasonable to me, but it is not the part I will be discussing.

He notes that Europe, rather than China, ended up becoming the winner of
the Eurasian sweepstakes because of its mountainous terrain, which
divided it up into a multitude of defensible nations. Because it didn't
become unified like China, the rulers of European countries didn't have
the option of suppressing technical innovation in an effort to increase
social stability, thus ensuring the continuance of their dynasties
further into the future. They weren't facing military threats only from
barbarian nomads, but from neighbors like themselves, up with whom they
would have to keep.

I think that is a very reasonable explanation. Rulers do tend to focus
on keeping themselves in power rather than on the welfare of those they
govern. When accepting technological innovation serves both goals, it is
more likely to be accepted.

While this particular rot has not yet begun to set in, and despite
America's status as the world's only superpower, even the wildest
critics of the Bush Administration would be hard-pressed to make a case
otherwise, I do think this is not a threat we can ignore from the
perspective of the more distant future. And this particular threat
doesn't need to come from the top either; if we feel absolutely secure,
in need of nothing to improve our condition, then the politics of NIMBY
(not in _my_ backyard) may prosper and thrive.

If we have a thriving society in space to measure ourselves against, we
will be less inclined to let ourselves fall behind.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

John Savard wrote:
I'm pretty sure this one isn't original with me, though.

I am very sympathetic to the basic all our eggs in one basket argument
recently recalled to our attention by Dr. Stephen Hawking.

I just wish to note a minor variation on that.

A handful of books have been published asking why China didn't continue
its forward march of progress, and retain the world leadership it had in
ancient times. Some put it down to the malign influence of using
characters instead of an alphabet to write with.

Recently, a book came out - actually written before September 11, 2001 -
asking what had gone wrong with the Islamic world, which also enjoyed
world leadership at one time.

This sort of theme, of course, is distressing to those who are strongly
committed to equality. A more politically-correct take on the question
was put forward by Jared Diamond in his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

While I oppose bigotry, I also see in political correctness much to
abhor; it often seems to result in a wilful blindness to reality.
Occasionally, though, it can lead to a fresh perspective and positive
results, and I believe this has happened in this case.

The main thesis of Jared Diamond's book is that societies with access to
rich and varied natural resources, but not varied in ways that lead to a
fragmentation that limits usefulness, will progress faster in technology
and civilization than societies with a more limited range. This seems
quite reasonable to me, but it is not the part I will be discussing.

He notes that Europe, rather than China, ended up becoming the winner of
the Eurasian sweepstakes because of its mountainous terrain, which
divided it up into a multitude of defensible nations. Because it didn't
become unified like China, the rulers of European countries didn't have
the option of suppressing technical innovation in an effort to increase
social stability, thus ensuring the continuance of their dynasties
further into the future. They weren't facing military threats only from
barbarian nomads, but from neighbors like themselves, up with whom they
would have to keep.

I think that is a very reasonable explanation. Rulers do tend to focus
on keeping themselves in power rather than on the welfare of those they
govern. When accepting technological innovation serves both goals, it is
more likely to be accepted.

While this particular rot has not yet begun to set in, and despite
America's status as the world's only superpower, even the wildest
critics of the Bush Administration would be hard-pressed to make a case
otherwise, I do think this is not a threat we can ignore from the
perspective of the more distant future. And this particular threat
doesn't need to come from the top either; if we feel absolutely secure,
in need of nothing to improve our condition, then the politics of NIMBY
(not in _my_ backyard) may prosper and thrive.

If we have a thriving society in space to measure ourselves against, we
will be less inclined to let ourselves fall behind.

Eurosceptics would also accept your argument, and, whilst I don't think
of myself as one, I'll make the argument.

There are quite a few Eurofederalists who would like to harmonise tax
rates, to prevent "unfair" tax competition. This would spare many
countries having to improve the efficiency of their state services.
Everyone would cooperate, rather than compete, and its well known that
competition is the greatest force for progress.

In article ,
John Savard wrote:

A handful of books have been published asking why China didn't continue
its forward march of progress, and retain the world leadership it had in
ancient times. Some put it down to the malign influence of using
characters instead of an alphabet to write with.

A few centuries ago is hardly ancient times.

It's a little odd that it would take until after 1750
century for the inherent flaws of Chinese writing to kick in.

Snip Diamond's geographic determanism. One wonders what his
model would have look like if he'd been writing in 1400.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll

On 2 Jul 2006 13:11:39 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote, in part:

There are quite a few Eurofederalists who would like to harmonise tax
rates, to prevent "unfair" tax competition. This would spare many
countries having to improve the efficiency of their state services.
Everyone would cooperate, rather than compete, and its well known that
competition is the greatest force for progress.

Competition is a great force for progress.

If, however, the competition is to attract capital, then different
states or provinces within a nation, where capital can move easily, will
naturally compete, not just by making their state services more
efficient, but by scrapping or cutting them. The result is Mississippi.

If governments are forced to compete with each other to make businessmen
happy, there will be great progress in the direction that benefits
businessmen.

One does have to ask the question, who has to compete, and what are they
competing for.

So, for Europe, the answer is, either harmonize tax rates, or make it
extremely difficult for capital to move from one European country to
another, by abandoning this "Common Market" idea. Either that, or the
businesses, and not the voters, decide how much social services there
will be.

Employers having market power, bad: unions having market power, good.
More people work for a living than live from owning stock.

Provided, of course, one can *afford* a welfare state. If, on the other
hand, Europe needs to have lots of factories to build guns and tanks to
keep Russia or China from invading - so they have to postpone the
welfare state utopia, and promote capital formation, to get those
factories, then that's progress too.

Because keeping Russia and China from taking over benefits everybody,
while letting rich people line their pockets benefits only them.

In other words, if businessmen want regressive social policies, it's
foolish to ask for them without a war scare? That's one way of taking
it, but it's not what I mean. Business should expect to take a few lumps
when unemployment is high; we expect, in this modern age of science, to
have answers to the perennial problems of the human condition, like the
war - boom - bust cycle. We expected the great discoveries of Keynes to
ensure the employment levels of the early 1960s would continue forever
and ever, world without end, benefiting those on the trailing edge of
the baby boom even as it was for those who were on the leading edge of
the baby boom.

We are not happy. Perhaps this time, it will be in the United States
that a populist demagogue comes along, making the world safe for the
businessmen in the *rest* of the world, as they can get the workers of
their countries to sacrifice to counter the threat of U.S. aggression.
This will not do U.S. businessmen any good. If they know what is good
for them, they should ease up a little on this globalization stuff.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

John Savard wrote:

He notes that Europe, rather than China, ended up becoming the winner of
the Eurasian sweepstakes because of its mountainous terrain, which
divided it up into a multitude of defensible nations. Because it didn't
become unified like China, the rulers of European countries didn't have
the option of suppressing technical innovation in an effort to increase
social stability, thus ensuring the continuance of their dynasties
further into the future. They weren't facing military threats only from
barbarian nomads, but from neighbors like themselves, up with whom they
would have to keep.

It seems to me a lot of innovation flowers where different cultures come
in contact with one another.

When a good solution to a problem is invented in a homogenous society
with easy transportation and communication, it removes further incentive
to work on the problem. So that one solution may remain the only solution.

But in a geographical area where ten cultures are divided by natural
boundaries, ten different solutions to the same problem can arise. Then
when the cultures meet, the best solution can be adopted.

Improved planetary communication and transportation have torn down many
barriers. Settlement of the solar system would renew diversity of human
culture.

Hop

People tolerate war and destruction and throwing money down the toilet
for it. But mention space exploration and they don't want to waste the
money. I guess the majority of people are retarded.


--
Since I'm not under oath, anything I say could be inaccurate.

Vlad the Impaler

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:46:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, Vlad
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

People tolerate war and destruction and throwing money down the toilet
for it. But mention space exploration and they don't want to waste the
money. I guess the majority of people are retarded.

Yes, I'm sure that's it. With you being a poster child for the
condition.

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:46:55 GMT, Vlad wrote, in
part:

People tolerate war and destruction and throwing money down the toilet
for it. But mention space exploration and they don't want to waste the
money.

People don't want to waste money on war and destruction either. But if
they are in danger of being attacked and conquered by _real enemies_,
then spending money on national defense doesn't seem like a waste of
money, but instead like meeting a very urgent practical problem.

Of course, in a cosmic sense, if *both* sides stopped spending money on
war and destruction, then a great deal of money would be saved. But in
real life, we don't have the power to choose what the other guy does. If
we did, we would have pushed the button on the remote control that would
have prevented Iraq under Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait, and the
button on the remote control that would have prevented Osama bin Laden
from plotting the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on
September 11, 2001.

Hey, we could have even avoided the expenditure, carnage, and suffering
of World War II, if we had the power to decide what Germany would choose
to do.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Vlad" wrote:
People tolerate war and destruction and throwing money down the toilet
for it. But mention space exploration and they don't want to waste the
money. I guess the majority of people are retarded.


--
Since I'm not under oath, anything I say could be inaccurate.

Vlad the Impaler

Too many people treat war as a thing independent of other things. It
isn't. It is a firestorm out of massive buildup of underbrush, tinder for
the slightest spark anywhere and everywhere in it. It is clarity, finally,
out of massive buildup of psycho-babble doing away with all clear
definitions and understandings from language. It is a resulting event out of
massive buildup of causes and effects finally seizing up the works through
absolutely conflicting complications reaching zero tolerances.

Life spreading out into the vast spaces and times of the Universe at large
will not end war as such but that spreading out, as in the past,
increasingly localizes all conflicts to the point where for a time all wars
become such small wars that, overall, life hardly notices that war exists at
all. World or universe class Armageddons -- for a time -- come nearest they
can ever get to being [natural] impossibilities.

GLB