Compartmentalizing

[MSimon]

I liked this old sci-fi novel where a businessman wanted to unite the world by creating a Martian invasion. So he kidnaps people from around the world, then transports them to Mars, brainwashes them, arms them with flintlocks. He sends them back to earth, where they tell humanity to 'surrender or die.' Can't remember the name of it now.

Not the same but interesting in terms of his view of technology of the future:

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/ ... -shop.html

The salespeople in each of the three shops claimed that the music box had a repertoire of eleven thousand and some odd separate musical selections, but this, of course, could not be put to the test, and varying opinions on this score have been expressed.

Let's see 11,000 YouTube Clips at 20MB ea = 220 GB. About 5 years away. Today 1,000 clips would be easy. And best yet? You get to choose your very own.

[Skipjack]

Any aliens capable of reaching across the stars would just dump thousands of tons of relatavistic projectile and cause a mass extinction.

Not if they actually want to use their conquered world for something. I would assume that any intelligent species would try to conquer the planet and integrate the conquered people into their empire. You know, like the Romans did with the people they conquered.
What is the point of simply destroying everything and making the world uninhabitable?

In the novel series (it really is a pulp novel series, but it had some details that were cool due to the background of the authors, one of them being a physicist) Perry Rhodan, Rhodan lands on the moon discovers the stranded Arconides (they had crash landed a huge ship there). They are sick and degenerated. He offers help in return for their tech. Then he uses the tech to make himself the "3rd power" between the eastern and the western block. That confusion causes east and west to launch their nuclear missiles at Rhodan and each other. The Arconide tech disables all nuclear bombs however. So the resulting damage is minimal. Rhodan with his small ship protected by an energy shield then becomes the hate object for the two blocks. They unite to take him out. They also launch another expedition to the moon to destroy the Arconide mothership with a new kind of H bombs. They even succeed, though two Arconides escape with a "small" 60 meter "Korvette" craft (I dont know, I guess you would call it a "dingy", or shuttle craft?). They join Rhodan and his team. The actual invasions ny aliens start when an automatic distress signal sent by the arconide cruiser causes several other alien species to get curious. Anyway, Rhodan uses the Arconide tech, his witts and the capabilities of his team to defeat those aliens. That finally causes the rest of the world to realize his good intentions and it gets united under a central government, with Rhodan becoming the first "administrator". The series is still arround, but it got a little bit to crazy for me in later books. The first cycle is still the best.
What I loved about this is that they got a lot of things right in the novels. The first books were written in the late 50ies and Rhodan reaches the moon in 1972 (pretty close, I think, but the authors never got over being "late" after Apollo 11, ggg). His ship "Stardust" uses NERVA type engines on top of a first stage powered by chemical engines. The whole rocket is 110 meters tall (almost the same hight as the Saturn 5). On the moon, they use automatic guns with "minirocket"- bullets.
I am pretty sure that they were the first (or among the first)to describe star trek like transporters and impulse engines.
So they dont have a recoil. Of course they got a lot wrong too. E.g. the fact that Venus is not a jungle world, like they described it, but that mistake was commonly made arround that time.
Sorry for the off topic

[Diogenes]

It is not a reproductive choice.

Has been for at least 2,500 years that we know of. Either openly or black market.

So has cannibalism, slavery and murder. Ancientness is no bestower of legitimacy. There are ancient evils, and abortion is one of them.

First comes the denial of reality. Then you make up any thing you want. I don't see how that helps you solve problems.

The abortion discussion is likewise one of compartmentalization. As I have mentioned previously, people create artificial boundaries where none in fact exist. The notion, for example, that at one point in time, a human is not a person, (before 12 weeks) then the next point in time it is. (after 12 weeks)

See? We have compartmentalized! Of course we are simply fooling ourselves. The growth of a human from conception to death is one continuous process, so our imagined boundaries are completely subjective.

The "Clever" judges that gave us this system had to perform legal backflips and contortions to create the opinion they wanted, but anyone with objectivity recognizes this as rationalization. Even it's proponents say the ruling makes no sense whatsoever. (At least the one's who are honest about it.)


The Pater Familius of Ancient Rome has more logical consistency! It doesn't attempt to argue that people are not people, it acknowledges that obvious truth. It simply asserts that the Pater has the right to kill members of his own family without repercussions from the authorities.

No logical consistency for US! Here is an example of the sheer idiocy that occurs as a result of having such ridiculous rulings from our courts.


Sacramento judge gives man 50-to-life for killing unborn baby


How is this not a violation of the 14th amendment? (You know, the one that requires equal application of the law, and the one they cite as justification for Roe V Wade)

[Diogenes]

I liked this old sci-fi novel where a businessman wanted to unite the world by creating a Martian invasion. So he kidnaps people from around the world, then transports them to Mars, brainwashes them, arms them with flintlocks. He sends them back to earth, where they tell humanity to 'surrender or die.' Can't remember the name of it now.

Sounds like a pretty good story.

Is it Sci-Fi comedy?

In that genre, Harry Harrison's "Bill the Galactic Hero" is simply the best example I've ever found.

[Diogenes]

Ever see the movie Watchmen? Humanity is united after a mastermind nukes several cities and frames a godlike superhero as the common enemy of mankind. In the original graphic novels (I'm told), the plot went that the mastermind instead framed fictional aliens.

It's much better than really being attacked by aliens. Any aliens capable of reaching across the stars would just dump thousands of tons of relatavistic projectile and cause a mass extinction. Fake aliens offer all of the benefits with none of the end of humanity.

It is rather axiomatic that any entity which can travel between the stars, would very likely have the technology to wipe us out.

[Diogenes]

Any aliens capable of reaching across the stars would just dump thousands of tons of relatavistic projectile and cause a mass extinction.

Not if they actually want to use their conquered world for something. I would assume that any intelligent species would try to conquer the planet and integrate the conquered people into their empire. You know, like the Romans did with the people they conquered.
What is the point of simply destroying everything and making the world uninhabitable?

You overlook another possibility. In the Peter Jackson movie "Bad Taste", the aliens invade a small town in New Zealand, to acquire a sample of humans to be shipped off into the galaxy as samples for an intergalactic food corporation. If the initial samples of human meat goes as planned, they intend to market them more agressively.

Fortunately, a bunch of New Zealand Bad asses show up with guns and blow the H3ll out of the aliens, leaving a "Bad Taste" in their mouth.

It's Sci-Fi dark comedy, if you like that sort of thing. (I LOVE dark comedy.)

[MSimon]

So has cannibalism, slavery and murder. Ancientness is no bestower of legitimacy. There are ancient evils, and abortion is one of them.

Well I guess the only question left is: how do you intend to police the black market? Bust up menstrual extraction parties? Go after women who use birth control pills as a morning after pill? Stop RU-486 importation? Monitor every "rape, incest, and life of the mother" abortion. And what about those d*** Jews who might be inclined to give significant weight to the mental health of the mother (yeah - we had this discussion a long time ago and decided that it is nothing to get your shorts in a knot about).

Wouldn't it be better just to convince women not to have abortions?

But that is hard to do. Because economic conditions in cities do not favor children while those outside cities do.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... d-red.html

The map is pretty straight forward. Outside cities - lean right. Inside cities - lean left. The rules for the two ecologies are different.

The thing is: cities are for energy constrained areas and eras. The countryside represents abundance. In general: low energy consumption people live in cities - high energy consumption people live in the countryside.

The other thing to remember: eventually cities become corrupt. This causes an out migration of the higher energy consumption folks from the city. And the death of the city. Once all the old junk - including politics - can be cleaned out - the cycle can start again.

[Diogenes]

So has cannibalism, slavery and murder. Ancientness is no bestower of legitimacy. There are ancient evils, and abortion is one of them.

Well I guess the only question left is: how do you intend to police the black market?

Since you regard this as the "only question left" I take this to mean that all other questions have been answered and you now agree with me?


I'll answer your question with a question. How do we stop murder now? We don't. We stop most of them, we just don't stop all of them.

The first thing we do is to teach people that murder is bad.

Bust up menstrual extraction parties? Go after women who use birth control pills as a morning after pill? Stop RU-486 importation? Monitor every "rape, incest, and life of the mother" abortion. And what about those d*** Jews who might be inclined to give significant weight to the mental health of the mother (yeah - we had this discussion a long time ago and decided that it is nothing to get your shorts in a knot about).

I don't recall that discussion. "Mental Health" is just a dodge for convenience. Physical Health alone should be the deciding factor.

Wouldn't it be better just to convince women not to have abortions?

Amen! And the first thing you need to do is to stigmatize it. People must first believe it to be wrong. This is how slavery was attacked. First convince people it is wrong and that it should not be tolerated. Eventually the political will will manifest. The Abolitionists already did this to Abortion once, but the FDR polluted legal system undid their work.

But that is hard to do. Because economic conditions in cities do not favor children while those outside cities do.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... d-red.html

The map is pretty straight forward. Outside cities - lean right. Inside cities - lean left. The rules for the two ecologies are different.

It is an interesting theory, and it appears to have some merit. However, cities do not immediately throw out notions of morality (such as Murder being wrong) just because of Urban social dynamics. (at least not yet.)

The thing is: cities are for energy constrained areas and eras. The countryside represents abundance. In general: low energy consumption people live in cities - high energy consumption people live in the countryside.

The other thing to remember: eventually cities become corrupt. This causes an out migration of the higher energy consumption folks from the city. And the death of the city. Once all the old junk - including politics - can be cleaned out - the cycle can start again.

I've read another essay on why the Cities are Liberal and the Countryside is Conservative. If I remember correctly, the author chalked it up to habit among other things. In the City, some unnamed entity provides water, sewage, hauls off the garbage, etc. and people do not have to concern themselves with it much. In the rural parts of the country, people have to take it upon themselves to address these problems.

People in cities are accustomed to being a little cog in a big machine, so they tend to be more compartmentalized and collectivistic. People in Rural areas are required to solve their own problems everyday, and so they become accustomed to doing so, making them more independent.

There's nothing like solving your own problems to bring you face to face with reality. As long as someone else is doing it for you, you never really become aware of how much trouble it is.

[choff]

I know in my country, at least in western Canada, most Liberal mp's are elected in urban ridings with universities or concentrations of senior civil servants and people with government contracts. Socialists tend to be elected in areas with large union representation, forestry, mining, rank and file government union jobs. Conservatives in suburbs or the rural areas, farm communities. Where people stand is usually where they sit.

[MSimon]

Diogenes,

I think you make my point. Why set up a government apparatus to police something which is better taught?

And then there is the bureaucratic interest: the problem must never be solved.

[MSimon]

In other words: if you want to make a Republican form of government more likely we need an autonomous dwelling unit. And cheap liquid fuels.

[Skipjack]

The first thing we do is to teach people that murder is bad.

Behaviourism at its "best".
People already know FROM BIRTH that killing other people is bad. It is in our genes!
That does not prevent people from killing other people. Why? In part the answer is again in our genes. The "warrior gene" e.g.. But not just that. Ever human has a certain limit at which he will become a killer. The question is where is that threshold?
Some people have a higher and others have a lower threshold. This is again determined to a large extent by our genes. There is also some nurture, but believing in a religion wont do much to stop these people. Especially if it is a religion that only requires you to repent your sind to find forgiveness.
You can condition people like lions to some extent that they wont do certain things, even if their nature tells them to do so. The moment you turn your back on them though they, like many wild animals in the circus might bite off your head.
Nature, not nurture, as unfortunate and politically incorrect as this fact is, it is still a fact.

[Diogenes]

I know in my country, at least in western Canada, most Liberal mp's are elected in urban ridings with universities or concentrations of senior civil servants and people with government contracts. Socialists tend to be elected in areas with large union representation, forestry, mining, rank and file government union jobs. Conservatives in suburbs or the rural areas, farm communities. Where people stand is usually where they sit.

It IS an intriguing phenomenon. My usual method, when dealing with multiple theories, is to consider the possibility that there may not be a single cause, but probably a summation of causes.( A recent bit of news is that Union Membership in Government now exceeds Union Membership in the private sector. )

Apart from that, I used to wonder why the North Eastern and Western part of the USA was so Liberal, but I have pretty much concluded that it is entirely due to Wealth and prosperity. (Which in both cases is a function of geography.)

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,

I think you make my point. Why set up a government apparatus to police something which is better taught?

Legal Legitimacy lends moral legitimacy in many people's minds. (Not all.)
Legal Legitimacy hampers efforts to teach stigma because too many people cannot separate the two concepts in their own minds. This is a remnant left over from the time when the legal WAS the moral.

Many people did not agree with slavery, but they accepted it because the law said it was legal.

And then there is the bureaucratic interest: the problem must never be solved.

We should reduce the number of bureaucrats!

[Diogenes]

In other words: if you want to make a Republican form of government more likely we need an autonomous dwelling unit. And cheap liquid fuels.

I think it's more complicated than that. But certainly that couldn't hurt!