Progress towards what?

Post Reply New Topic

Probably. But it won't be on my planet. So I could care less what they do!

Well, given that any celestial object with enough surface gravity to allow a person to jump and not reach escape velocity will tend to be fairly large, it will probably be that there will be multiple colonies upon each planet or moon that is colonized. I personally like the Tambu/Firefly situation of life just aboard spacecraft rather than being stuck on a planet. Earth is nice in terms of atmosphere, plants, animals, and landscapes, but cities and micromanaging governments I wouldn't mind doing without.

I don't see planets as the only potential habitat. Stanford Torus-setup colonies or the hollowed out interiors of asteroids could also work. Additionally if people never intend to leave the colony (or at least, visit Earth or a place with higher gravity) I can imagine them settling on moons/planets with lower gravity
I haven't watched Firefly, but I think my personal favorite vision is that of Kim Stanley Robinson in Blue Mars

The Stanford torus is a rather cool design, and if you notice on the cover art of Red Mars the Ares is actually a version of the Stanford design with multiple rings (although in a hexagonal solid form rather than a purely toroidal form for each of the rings attached to the central axis). A Stanford Torus, or similar design, would work especially well for producing agricultural products to be sold and shipped throughout colonized space. It might be a better design for spacecraft to travel in pairs than to be made in the fashion of Robinson's Ares though. I think that if a pair of spacecraft, like two space shuttles, were to be tethered together so that the floors of each faced outward from the axis in between the ships and then oppositional orthogonal thrusters were fired with respect to each craft (such that, say, each fired their port thrusters or whatever official designation) they could then rotate about the axis in between them and allow for centrifugal gravity. For longer space flights they would accelerate untethered until the constant velocity required is reached, have the tethers attached by an automated system, and then fire the proper thrusters to allow them to rotate about the axis between the vessels until the deceleration phase of travel. Military spacecraft could also have it so that the rotation is high enough to allow for artificial gravity greater than the planet or colony that they would be stationed at, so as to allow for them to maintain muscle tone in excess of any combatants located at the target destination in case of melee combat. I had only read through some of Red Mars, BTW, I got tired of reading about Moya and Frank and John of the great Martian love triangle, although Nadia's thoughts on the matter were rather humorous.

Firefly is a somewhat cool, and definitely unique, sci-fi and western hybrid show. If you can watch the youtube clip, the lyrics of the song are supposed to be reflective of the thoughts of Captain Malcolm Reynold's who had fought against the Defense Alliance in the battle of Serenity valley and held them back, only to be told that the leaders of the Independents had already decided to surrender. He named his ship after that battlefield.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrAS20mNZUE[/youtube]

I was pretty happy when both Frank & John were finally dead and the whole thing was mostly settled, as far as I remember. Those parts were rather snore worthy
Blue Mars has a lot to do with settlement of the outer solar system and the final stages in Mars' terraforming. KSR has a good vision in the novels but some of the character interaction is rather oddball, and Green Mars has this strange colony called Zygote with odd practices bordering on incest
I like the idea of the two spacecraft tethered together quite a bit. Actually one thing about Robinson's Ares I liked is that it was constructed out of spent fuel tanks that were left in orbit- honestly if this was a regular practice we would have enough fuel tanks out there to construct several small stations
Have you by any chance read The Case for Mars? Zubrin actually describes a spacecraft quite like what you describe here. Ever since I read about it, that has also been the premier design for artificial gravity for me as well

progress toward Cuba and North Korea

Right-libertarians = People who advised Augusto Pinochet

You must be proud.

Until they send missionaries...
Or worse, crusaders!

Towards persistently high unemployment, low foreign investment, a diluted national identity and mediocrity all around.

High interest rates is a rightwing monetary policy. I'd love to know what you're crap about the dilution of the national idenity means and whether Native Americans are a part of it (given most rightwing cultural xenophobes tend to forget they exist, I doubt it).

There is no such thing as a right-wing monetary policy (at least not if economics is treated a science). I said nothing about monetary policy anyway; if it were up to me, banks would set their own reserve ratios.

America's cultural core is Anglo-Saxon. The laws, language, and customs are (for the most part) British in origin. America was never culturally informed by the aboriginal population since they had no common culture. They weren't even legal citizens until 1924. As the demographics change the country will drift away from its British origins. Mexicans don't care about Constitutional law, the War of Independence or the 4th of July. They are cultural interlopers.

Because it's meant to mean socialist namby-pamby lily-livered hand-wringing. Nothing like what the original meaning of the word is supposed to be about at all.

No, I haven't read that yet. I've been trying to see if it will show up at a local used book store for cheap prior to ordering it from amazon. It did sound interesting when you recommended it to me last time, so I've been looking for it. There are quite a few other books I've noticed associated with The Case For Mars along the same line of developing a spacefaring civilization that I'd also like to read at some point.

The problem isn't with the word, it's with the people. Liberals even ruin the words used to describe them...

As someone who considers himself "progressive", I would say that my idea of the term is grounded in the fundamental concept that nothing is truly static-- to be alive inherently necessitates growth and change, to be in a state of constant flux, and hopefully, to aspire to constantly self-improve and adapt. I suppose it's fairly easy to become jaded about the idea of progress when the results of such progress quite often create new and difficult challenges. Nevertheless, I approach progressivism from a position of genuine hope that we can all, as individuals and as a collective, aspire to be better people.

My view of progressive ideology is comprised of various forms of change, including:
- Scientific progress, in a varied range of fields from medicine to physics, to space exploration, to technology.
- Cultural progress, toward a society that values intellectual curiosity, and actively promotes the arts and excellence in its educational infrastructure.
- The advancement of tolerance and societal egalitarianism, wherein all people are afforded the same rights, regardless of race, class, gender, orientation, or affiliation. I would also characterize this as a desire to create and maintain a secular state-- not to abolish or persecute religious institutions altogether, but to segregate them from the political structure so as to create a neutral democratic system designed to fairly represent the voices of all its people and conducive to the scientific and cultural progress mentioned above.
- A vibrant economy. Some progressives favor across-the-board socialism; I'm one of the progressives who actually still endorses capitalism, albeit not the distorted, hideously inequitable and inefficient free market model lauded by the Randians and corporatists. Though globalization has rendered capitalism as currently practiced counterproductive to the interests of the American labor force by offering lower production and labor costs abroad, I still feel that the potential exists, with some amount of moderation, for capitalism to incentivize innovation and standards of quality. I believe, in instances where privitization would likely result in the commoditization of "inalienable" human rights (industries like healthcare, police, and fire departments), a socialized government alternative must be available to prevent monopolies from completely stripping people of their freedoms, dignity, money, or even their lives. In other industries, I believe there must be some regulatory apparatus in place to force corporations into behaving scrupulously. I also favor labor unions, and organizations like the FDA which ensure the protection of the consumer.

Overall, my view of government in general is that it is a social contract whose role is to represent and protect all of its constituents. I disagree with people who believe it can't do anything properly, and it must therefore be shrunken as much as possible to keep it in check; as long as it can be run competently, the government does have important, necessary functions. I think the "small government that doesn't have the power to do anything" vs. "big government that invades upon people's personal lives" is a false dichotomy, and I don't particularly find either extreme palatable. I'd much prefer a government which strikes a balance between the two.