Is it time for us to start working on leaving the planet?

[Bronzeage]

I did read your post, and many others like it. Why do you think a journey through space will change human nature, or do you think the selection process will somehow filter out unharmonious types?

I think that when people are happy and comfortable, they will be peaceful. We know this because religions are mixed in many countries that do not kill each other.

The superpowers and many other rich countries are giving off too much "social, political and economic pollution" for these other countries to have a chance like Canada and the U.S. did. We both gained power relatively quick and never looked back. We were lucky because the French, Spanish and English totally weakened each other which allowed our independences to go much more smoothly than if they didn't battle each other so much, well at least ours went smoothly.

If China and Russia become the next superpowers, then we will probably end up in civil wars, religious conflicts and other scrambles for power.

We've already solved the engineering obstacles to getting humans into space. It is expensive and there is very little in the way of useful materials, close at hand. If you really think this is a solution, you should address the practical problems of colonizations, which are first, the financing of the endeavor, and second, surviving in an inhospitable environment. If you want to start work on leaving the planet, those are the immediate problems.

I addressed this when I mentioned in the OP that 3D printers will let us reuse material. We may not need much more than we leave with.

That is not a plan. It is a fantasy. We still haven't discussed how much it is going to cost and who is footing the bill.

 

[ryan]

Sure, but every country faces this potential problem too. The colony/ies would be designed to minimize these potential problems as much as possible. We learn from our mistakes in the past and will continually try to avoid new mistakes.

So, you're basically saying that the only chance of survival is to get off Earth.
So whoever doesn't make the cut for a colony or a generation ship will stay on Earth and die.

It's not like the colony means that you will live forever; although I would hope and suspect that it will eventually be much more scientifically advanced than Earth.

Well, that's easy, then. Just start killing off the people here that don't fit in to your ideal population of humanity. It's the same thing, right?

Why can't they just live more harmoniously in their religious world.

And if people are willing to put their religious priorities behind them, then they are welcome aboard. The truth is that they probably wouldn't be interested in this much change if they can't stand to see women in skirts. I don't see how they would ever even desire to live in such a liberal environment. But if they want to, great, they obviously think that their religion is compatible with the colony and all it would stand for.

Some quick artificial selection, slaughter anyone who disagrees with you and you'll have the perfect human civilization.

Yes Keith, of course it comes down to slaughtering everyone. But before we do, we should at least enslave them for a few hundred years so that we can be happier from their blood and sweat.

How do you think that'll turn out in four or five hundred years, though? Is it going to remain perfect? Will it be sustainable? Or might there be problems down the line?

By then I hope the colony is out of Earth's sight. Then there should almost be no reason why they should hate us. ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, communists, etc. won't be bothered anymore.

Is there anything you can think of that would make this method work differently on a spaceship?

Yes, there would be no geopolitical conflicts, thus the whole point in my OP that nobody seems to want to read.

I think any human population will come up with new ideas, or be attracted to old ideas that are 'prohibited.' Probably BECAUSE they're prohibited.

Nothing that comes to my mind during my intensions in thinking of this idea will be prohibited that is not prohibited in the Western World already. The colony will basically be an extension of Western ideologies but without the unresolvable geopolitical horrors that will continue to snowball.

You'd be better off getting humanity to change as a whole than try to filter out bad elements, whether you kill them off or just leave them behind to die.

Trying to change people usually ends in angst and any other negative description that can be thought of.

They will be given a choice to continue the way they are or not.

This goes for you too Keith: do you want to stay and support corporately controlled governments that have no major rational interests in improving the world and more interests in being richer (or "greater" or re-establish being a "great nation") than everyone else by bleeding their resources and economies dry, or do you want to be involved with something that is more dedicated to progressing humankind by organizing and structuring a civilization that prioritizes in peace and happiness for its inhabitants while remembering lessons learnt here on Earth akin to what the Founding Fathers did?

 

[ryan]

I think that when people are happy and comfortable, they will be peaceful. We know this because religions are mixed in many countries that do not kill each other.

The superpowers and many other rich countries are giving off too much "social, political and economic pollution" for these other countries to have a chance like Canada and the U.S. did. We both gained power relatively quick and never looked back. We were lucky because the French, Spanish and English totally weakened each other which allowed our independences to go much more smoothly than if they didn't battle each other so much, well at least ours went smoothly.

If China and Russia become the next superpowers, then we will probably end up in civil wars, religious conflicts and other scrambles for power.

We've already solved the engineering obstacles to getting humans into space. It is expensive and there is very little in the way of useful materials, close at hand. If you really think this is a solution, you should address the practical problems of colonizations, which are first, the financing of the endeavor, and second, surviving in an inhospitable environment. If you want to start work on leaving the planet, those are the immediate problems.

I addressed this when I mentioned in the OP that 3D printers will let us reuse material. We may not need much more than we leave with.

That is not a plan. It is a fantasy. We still haven't discussed how much it is going to cost and who is footing the bill.

It's all about raising the interests of the people and governments. Raise the interest, and the financing and science will come.

 

[bilby]

We have been working on leaving the planet since at least the early 1930s. Most of the people who started this work were adherents to some pretty unpleasant ideologies; there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that an off-world colony would be better, politically, than any on-world colonies have been.

If you read my OP, you would know that the point is that progressive minded people are a cancer on those who aren't and vice-versa. It is only fitting and obvious that progressive minded people are more capable and have more of an interest in leaving.

The world will have one less ideology to fight. Let Earth be for conservative minded people because is where they would naturally want to be anyways.

But if conservative minded people want to leave too, by all means nobody should stop them.

The un-stated assumption here is that 'progressive minded people' are a product only of genetics. That your imagined eugenic superior race who colonise the stars will be made up only of progressive minded people is fantasy; That their offspring would share this trait is fantasy-squared.

History tells us that within a generation, your colony will be full of bickering and discord - because not everyone has the same hopes, aspirations, ideals or goals; and because even if you select a group specifically for those traits (which would be difficult or impossible to do), their children are certain not to share them.

There are no progressive minded people and conservative minded people; there are just people. The categorisation of them into progressive or conservative does not reflect a fundamental attribute of the individuals placed in each class; and certainly doesn't reflect an inheritable trait.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think that when people are happy and comfortable, they will be peaceful. We know this because religions are mixed in many countries that do not kill each other.

The superpowers and many other rich countries are giving off too much "social, political and economic pollution" for these other countries to have a chance like Canada and the U.S. did. We both gained power relatively quick and never looked back. We were lucky because the French, Spanish and English totally weakened each other which allowed our independences to go much more smoothly than if they didn't battle each other so much, well at least ours went smoothly.

If China and Russia become the next superpowers, then we will probably end up in civil wars, religious conflicts and other scrambles for power.

We've already solved the engineering obstacles to getting humans into space. It is expensive and there is very little in the way of useful materials, close at hand. If you really think this is a solution, you should address the practical problems of colonizations, which are first, the financing of the endeavor, and second, surviving in an inhospitable environment. If you want to start work on leaving the planet, those are the immediate problems.

I addressed this when I mentioned in the OP that 3D printers will let us reuse material. We may not need much more than we leave with.

That is not a plan. It is a fantasy. We still haven't discussed how much it is going to cost and who is footing the bill.

It's all about raising the interests of the people and governments. Raise the interest, and the financing and science will come.

You don't seem to understand the economics of the situation. Why should the people who will be left behind finance your getaway?

 

[ryan]

If you read my OP, you would know that the point is that progressive minded people are a cancer on those who aren't and vice-versa. It is only fitting and obvious that progressive minded people are more capable and have more of an interest in leaving.

The world will have one less ideology to fight. Let Earth be for conservative minded people because is where they would naturally want to be anyways.

But if conservative minded people want to leave too, by all means nobody should stop them.

The un-stated assumption here is that 'progressive minded people' are a product only of genetics. That your imagined eugenic superior race who colonise the stars will be made up only of progressive minded people is fantasy; That their offspring would share this trait is fantasy-squared.

Oh bilby no, it has very little to do with genetics. Liberal people are usually young people, and conservative people are usually old people. Both are relative throughout time. What is conservative today was probably liberal 50 years ago, and so on. And if there was another significant factor in what would cause an old person to be liberal is a side that is nurtured and developed sometime in their lives.

It's no coincidence that George senior, George and Jeb Bush are all republican. It is no coincidence that some states are constantly democratic by majority and some states are continuously republican by majority. Whatever political "machine" put in place is usually enough to influence people into continuing the tradition and idiology.

History tells us that within a generation, your colony will be full of bickering and discord - because not everyone has the same hopes, aspirations, ideals or goals; and because even if you select a group specifically for those traits (which would be difficult or impossible to do), their children are certain not to share them.

There are no progressive minded people and conservative minded people; there are just people. The categorisation of them into progressive or conservative does not reflect a fundamental attribute of the individuals placed in each class; and certainly doesn't reflect an inheritable trait.

It will be natural for liberals and progressives to be the bulk of the interest in this. Many other types of people will be interested and helpful too.

 

[ryan]

I think that when people are happy and comfortable, they will be peaceful. We know this because religions are mixed in many countries that do not kill each other.

The superpowers and many other rich countries are giving off too much "social, political and economic pollution" for these other countries to have a chance like Canada and the U.S. did. We both gained power relatively quick and never looked back. We were lucky because the French, Spanish and English totally weakened each other which allowed our independences to go much more smoothly than if they didn't battle each other so much, well at least ours went smoothly.

If China and Russia become the next superpowers, then we will probably end up in civil wars, religious conflicts and other scrambles for power.

We've already solved the engineering obstacles to getting humans into space. It is expensive and there is very little in the way of useful materials, close at hand. If you really think this is a solution, you should address the practical problems of colonizations, which are first, the financing of the endeavor, and second, surviving in an inhospitable environment. If you want to start work on leaving the planet, those are the immediate problems.

I addressed this when I mentioned in the OP that 3D printers will let us reuse material. We may not need much more than we leave with.

That is not a plan. It is a fantasy. We still haven't discussed how much it is going to cost and who is footing the bill.

It's all about raising the interests of the people and governments. Raise the interest, and the financing and science will come.

You don't seem to understand the economics of the situation. Why should the people who will be left behind finance your getaway?

It will be a major economic boost for who ever is interested in this project. I can see China and many other countries taking on this new industry.

 

[bilby]

The un-stated assumption here is that 'progressive minded people' are a product only of genetics. That your imagined eugenic superior race who colonise the stars will be made up only of progressive minded people is fantasy; That their offspring would share this trait is fantasy-squared.

Oh bilby no, it has very little to do with genetics. Liberal people are usually young people, and conservative people are usually old people. Both are relative throughout time. What is conservative today was probably liberal 50 years ago, and so on. And if there was another significant factor in what would cause an old person to be liberal is a side that is nurtured and developed sometime in their lives.

It's no coincidence that George senior, George and Jeb Bush are all republican. It is no coincidence that some states are constantly democratic by majority and some states are continuously republican by majority. Whatever political "machine" put in place is usually enough to influence people into continuing the tradition and idiology.

If that were true, change would be either non-existent, or at least very slow. Change in attitudes in the span of a handful of generations would be impossible. But we observe such changes to have occurred in a single generation; very clearly your thesis is wrong - not only is there no genetic brake on change, there is no effective cultural brake on change either.

You putative perfect society cannot be made to occur; but even if it could, it would disintegrate within a generation.

History tells us that within a generation, your colony will be full of bickering and discord - because not everyone has the same hopes, aspirations, ideals or goals; and because even if you select a group specifically for those traits (which would be difficult or impossible to do), their children are certain not to share them.

There are no progressive minded people and conservative minded people; there are just people. The categorisation of them into progressive or conservative does not reflect a fundamental attribute of the individuals placed in each class; and certainly doesn't reflect an inheritable trait.

It will be natural for liberals and progressives to be the bulk of the interest in this. Many other types of people will be interested and helpful too.

Wishful thinking is not a sound basis for planning. I understand that you really WANT things to be as you describe; but they are NOT, and never have been - and you have no basis other than blind faith for thinking that they ever will be.

People fuck things up. Moving people into space will do nothing at all to stop people from fucking things up. If you could find a way to stop people from fucking things up, there would be no need to go to space to do it - and if you can't find a way to stop people from fucking things up, going to space will not help.

No matter how far your colonists run, the colonists will still be there, still human, and still fucking things up.

 

[ryan]

Oh bilby no, it has very little to do with genetics. Liberal people are usually young people, and conservative people are usually old people. Both are relative throughout time. What is conservative today was probably liberal 50 years ago, and so on. And if there was another significant factor in what would cause an old person to be liberal is a side that is nurtured and developed sometime in their lives.

It's no coincidence that George senior, George and Jeb Bush are all republican. It is no coincidence that some states are constantly democratic by majority and some states are continuously republican by majority. Whatever political "machine" put in place is usually enough to influence people into continuing the tradition and idiology.

If that were true, change would be either non-existent, or at least very slow. Change in attitudes in the span of a handful of generations would be impossible. But we observe such changes to have occurred in a single generation; very clearly your thesis is wrong - not only is there no genetic brake on change, there is no effective cultural brake on change either.

It is hardly my thesis as much as it is a historical fact. New generations generally glom onto new ideologies while old generations generally reject them. Jesus bilby, even Jesus says that the old wine does not work well with new wine skins, and old jackets shouldn't have new patches on them. He said this because even back then it was known that the younger generation would be more likely to follow him than the older generations.

You putative perfect society cannot be made to occur; but even if it could, it would disintegrate within a generation.

It's actually a good balance historically. Change happens when the youth can convince their elders or when it is very obvious that change is needed. Change doesn't happen when the experienced elders have seen and know that it won't work or that it's just an attempt at pandering.

People get stuck in what they are comfortable with. So when I get older, I would be happy to see the younger generation find constructive changes.

It will be natural for liberals and progressives to be the bulk of the interest in this. Many other types of people will be interested and helpful too.

Wishful thinking is not a sound basis for planning. I understand that you really WANT things to be as you describe; but they are NOT, and never have been - and you have no basis other than blind faith for thinking that they ever will be.

People fuck things up. Moving people into space will do nothing at all to stop people from fucking things up. If you could find a way to stop people from fucking things up, there would be no need to go to space to do it - and if you can't find a way to stop people from fucking things up, going to space will not help.

No matter how far your colonists run, the colonists will still be there, still human, and still fucking things up.

I agree 100%. Things could get better though.

 

[bilby]

If that were true, change would be either non-existent, or at least very slow. Change in attitudes in the span of a handful of generations would be impossible. But we observe such changes to have occurred in a single generation; very clearly your thesis is wrong - not only is there no genetic brake on change, there is no effective cultural brake on change either.

It is hardly my thesis as much as it is a historical fact. New generations generally glom onto new ideologies while old generations generally reject them. Jesus bilby, even Jesus says that the old wine does not work well with new wine skins, and old jackets shouldn't have new patches on them. He said this because even back then it was known that the younger generation would be more likely to follow him than the older generations.

You putative perfect society cannot be made to occur; but even if it could, it would disintegrate within a generation.

It's actually a good balance historically. Change happens when the youth can convince their elders or when it is very obvious that change is needed. Change doesn't happen when the experienced elders have seen and know that it won't work or that it's just an attempt at pandering.

People get stuck in what they are comfortable with. So when I get older, I would be happy to see the younger generation find constructive changes.

It will be natural for liberals and progressives to be the bulk of the interest in this. Many other types of people will be interested and helpful too.

Wishful thinking is not a sound basis for planning. I understand that you really WANT things to be as you describe; but they are NOT, and never have been - and you have no basis other than blind faith for thinking that they ever will be.

People fuck things up. Moving people into space will do nothing at all to stop people from fucking things up. If you could find a way to stop people from fucking things up, there would be no need to go to space to do it - and if you can't find a way to stop people from fucking things up, going to space will not help.

No matter how far your colonists run, the colonists will still be there, still human, and still fucking things up.

I agree 100%. Things could get better though.

Things could get better without going into space too - and at a fraction of the cost.

This is your argument, in summary - with the exception that life in space is far, far harder to live in or get to than under the sea would be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OosYFs3cyZ8

 

[Bronzeage]

I think that when people are happy and comfortable, they will be peaceful. We know this because religions are mixed in many countries that do not kill each other.

The superpowers and many other rich countries are giving off too much "social, political and economic pollution" for these other countries to have a chance like Canada and the U.S. did. We both gained power relatively quick and never looked back. We were lucky because the French, Spanish and English totally weakened each other which allowed our independences to go much more smoothly than if they didn't battle each other so much, well at least ours went smoothly.

If China and Russia become the next superpowers, then we will probably end up in civil wars, religious conflicts and other scrambles for power.

We've already solved the engineering obstacles to getting humans into space. It is expensive and there is very little in the way of useful materials, close at hand. If you really think this is a solution, you should address the practical problems of colonizations, which are first, the financing of the endeavor, and second, surviving in an inhospitable environment. If you want to start work on leaving the planet, those are the immediate problems.

I addressed this when I mentioned in the OP that 3D printers will let us reuse material. We may not need much more than we leave with.

That is not a plan. It is a fantasy. We still haven't discussed how much it is going to cost and who is footing the bill.

It's all about raising the interests of the people and governments. Raise the interest, and the financing and science will come.

You don't seem to understand the economics of the situation. Why should the people who will be left behind finance your getaway?

It will be a major economic boost for who ever is interested in this project. I can see China and many other countries taking on this new industry.

More fantasy. Do you have any kind of realistic budget for this project?

Other than a desire to run away from home, what is the need to leave this planet? Is there any kind of economic return at all?

 

[ryan]

It is hardly my thesis as much as it is a historical fact. New generations generally glom onto new ideologies while old generations generally reject them. Jesus bilby, even Jesus says that the old wine does not work well with new wine skins, and old jackets shouldn't have new patches on them. He said this because even back then it was known that the younger generation would be more likely to follow him than the older generations.

You putative perfect society cannot be made to occur; but even if it could, it would disintegrate within a generation.

It's actually a good balance historically. Change happens when the youth can convince their elders or when it is very obvious that change is needed. Change doesn't happen when the experienced elders have seen and know that it won't work or that it's just an attempt at pandering.

People get stuck in what they are comfortable with. So when I get older, I would be happy to see the younger generation find constructive changes.

It will be natural for liberals and progressives to be the bulk of the interest in this. Many other types of people will be interested and helpful too.

Wishful thinking is not a sound basis for planning. I understand that you really WANT things to be as you describe; but they are NOT, and never have been - and you have no basis other than blind faith for thinking that they ever will be.

People fuck things up. Moving people into space will do nothing at all to stop people from fucking things up. If you could find a way to stop people from fucking things up, there would be no need to go to space to do it - and if you can't find a way to stop people from fucking things up, going to space will not help.

No matter how far your colonists run, the colonists will still be there, still human, and still fucking things up.

I agree 100%. Things could get better though.

Things could get better without going into space too - and at a fraction of the cost.

Yeah, but then WW3 could break out, and I don't want to be here when it does. I would rather die crashing into Jupiter or something like that.

This is your argument, in summary - with the exception that life in space is far, far harder to live in or get to than under the sea would be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OosYFs3cyZ8

Or what about the clip where Bart has a vision for what he expects to have happen when they are stranded on a deserted island.

 

[ryan]

More fantasy. Do you have any kind of realistic budget for this project?

That would be one of the first things to do next, but I am only at this stage.

Other than a desire to run away from home, what is the need to leave this planet? Is there any kind of economic return at all?

I put the reasons in my OP. Why don't people read it before replying - unbelievable!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, that's easy, then. Just start killing off the people here that don't fit in to your ideal population of humanity. It's the same thing, right?

Why can't they just live more harmoniously in their religious world.

A good question.
But you've already given up on them. You have stated that the only hope is to leave the Earth and such people behind.
Why go to that effort and expense, to leave them a planet that they're just going ot destroy?
Kill them all, leave the planet in the hands of the Right People.
Surely that'll work just as well?

And if people are willing to put their religious priorities behind them, then they are welcome aboard.

So you've given up on people who don't share your priorities.
In all honesty, i think it would be much better to promote the idea of getting all sorts of different people to live together, with whatever their ideas are.
Rather than just figure The Others deserve to die off.

The truth is that they probably wouldn't be interested in this much change if they can't stand to see women in skirts. I don't see how they would ever even desire to live in such a liberal environment. But if they want to, great, they obviously think that their religion is compatible with the colony and all it would stand for.

What it stands for is a very expensive genocide, ryan.
At least, according to you.

Some quick artificial selection, slaughter anyone who disagrees with you and you'll have the perfect human civilization.

Yes Keith, of course it comes down to slaughtering everyone.

Kill them off or leaving them to die in the destruction of the Earth. Not too much difference in the long run.
But at least you save yourself, right?

How do you think that'll turn out in four or five hundred years, though? Is it going to remain perfect? Will it be sustainable? Or might there be problems down the line?

By then I hope the colony is out of Earth's sight. Then there should almost be no reason why they should hate us.

I wasn't talking about Earth, Ryan. i was talking about your colony.
If you surround yourself with like-minded people NOW, how will you make sure they stay like minded for the next 200 generations?
You'll become even more tyrannical than the Taliban.
You'll have to. You won't have room or resources for dissent. Your colony won't be able to support spinning off a sub-colony for anyone who doesn't like the original colony.

You'll have to kill them off, too. and more directly, this time, rather than just leave them to kill themselves off.

Is there anything you can think of that would make this method work differently on a spaceship?

Yes, there would be no geopolitical conflicts, thus the whole point in my OP that nobody seems to want to read.

But people are the source of geopolitical conflicts, Ryan. There will still be people in your colony. Maybe it won't be 'holy land' vs. 'fatherland,' but there will be conflicts. Biohazard vs. bioreplacement, or Navigation vs. Resource management.

Your fantasy ignores basic human behavior.

I think any human population will come up with new ideas, or be attracted to old ideas that are 'prohibited.' Probably BECAUSE they're prohibited.

Nothing that comes to my mind during my intensions in thinking of this idea will be prohibited that is not prohibited in the Western World already. The colony will basically be an extension of Western ideologies but without the unresolvable geopolitical horrors that will continue to snowball.

Right, right.
Because no one in the West would choose to kill someone over their sexuality. No one in the West tries to dictate how we dress, what we eat, what we do for fun, how much of our resources are dedicated to a given project or controlled by a small few.
It's all geopolitical conflict.

You'd be better off getting humanity to change as a whole than try to filter out bad elements, whether you kill them off or just leave them behind to die.

Trying to change people usually ends in angst and any other negative description that can be thought of.

Which means you're just exporting that problem to your colony, right?
It is inevitable.

They will be given a choice to continue the way they are or not.

Ah.
I get it, now.
I was about to ask who the fuck gave you the right to choose ideologies for everyone else. But that's the purpose of the spaceship. You own it, you control it, you get to decide who gets into your lifeboat. Everyone left on the sinking ship deserves to go down with the ship, exactly because they're unwilling to become like you.
Handy. That makes it their fault that they die, not your callous disregard for anyone's right to believe or act differently from you.

This goes for you too Keith: do you want to stay and support corporately controlled governments that have no major rational interests in improving the world and more interests in being richer (or "greater" or re-establish being a "great nation") than everyone else by bleeding their resources and economies dry, or do you want to be involved with something that is more dedicated to progressing humankind by organizing and structuring a civilization that prioritizes in peace and happiness for its inhabitants while remembering lessons learnt here on Earth akin to what the Founding Fathers did?

Um, neither, really.
I think your colony will start off with grand ideas that ignore too much reality to accomplish anything but stave off the same problems you're leaving behind.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If we're going to cordon people off in their own colonies, wouldn't undersea domes work much better? They could be set up exactly the same way as space stations, but at a fraction of the cost and if you don't feel that the libertarian utopia you're living in fits your outlook, the communist utopia is just a quick submarine ride away.

 

[ryan]

Why can't they just live more harmoniously in their religious world.

A good question.
But you've already given up on them. You have stated that the only hope is to leave the Earth and such people behind.
Why go to that effort and expense, to leave them a planet that they're just going ot destroy?
Kill them all, leave the planet in the hands of the Right People.
Surely that'll work just as well?

The point is if non-religiously centered societies break away from the religiously centered societies, then there may be less conflict for both societies. It won't stop all conflicts, but it will at least separate two major opponents.

And if people are willing to put their religious priorities behind them, then they are welcome aboard.

So you've given up on people who don't share your priorities.

What is the alternative, force them to share my priorities?

In all honesty, i think it would be much better to promote the idea of getting all sorts of different people to live together, with whatever their ideas are.
Rather than just figure The Others deserve to die off.

But we are already doing this right now. Instead of letting people die off in Afghanistan, Iraq, much of Africa, Palestine, Israel, Ukraine, Mexico (gang violence), Ecuador, Honduras, etc. we should just move them into Canada and the U.S. Nobody wants this to happen, and I can't force them to let it happen.

The truth is that they probably wouldn't be interested in this much change if they can't stand to see women in skirts. I don't see how they would ever even desire to live in such a liberal environment. But if they want to, great, they obviously think that their religion is compatible with the colony and all it would stand for.

What it stands for is a very expensive genocide, ryan.
At least, according to you.

trolling

Yes Keith, of course it comes down to slaughtering everyone.

Kill them off or leaving them to die in the destruction of the Earth. Not too much difference in the long run.
But at least you save yourself, right?

I don't know if I will be around to see this. I hope this happens for the sake of humanity.

How do you think that'll turn out in four or five hundred years, though? Is it going to remain perfect? Will it be sustainable? Or might there be problems down the line?

By then I hope the colony is out of Earth's sight. Then there should almost be no reason why they should hate us.

I wasn't talking about Earth, Ryan. i was talking about your colony.
If you surround yourself with like-minded people NOW, how will you make sure they stay like minded for the next 200 generations?
You'll become even more tyrannical than the Taliban.
You'll have to. You won't have room or resources for dissent. Your colony won't be able to support spinning off a sub-colony for anyone who doesn't like the original colony.

For even the first colony to work, we will have to be able to convert energy and materials into finished products at the push of a button. 3D printing is closing in on this.

Yes, there would be no geopolitical conflicts, thus the whole point in my OP that nobody seems to want to read.

But people are the source of geopolitical conflicts, Ryan. There will still be people in your colony. Maybe it won't be 'holy land' vs. 'fatherland,' but there will be conflicts. Biohazard vs. bioreplacement, or Navigation vs. Resource management.

The idea is that a system will be set in place to deal with these types of issues. It won't be perfect, and they may have to learn a little as they go. But they will try to foresee as many issues as problems and build a system that can deal with them.

We know more than we have ever did. Because we have so much scientific knowledge, we are able to predict much more than we ever have before. This allows us to gain more control than we ever have before.

And we are much more conscious about how we change and what we change than we were 300 years ago.

Nothing that comes to my mind during my intensions in thinking of this idea will be prohibited that is not prohibited in the Western World already. The colony will basically be an extension of Western ideologies but without the unresolvable geopolitical horrors that will continue to snowball.

Right, right.
Because no one in the West would choose to kill someone over their sexuality. No one in the West tries to dictate how we dress, what we eat, what we do for fun, how much of our resources are dedicated to a given project or controlled by a small few.
It's all geopolitical conflict.

Come on Keith, I would hope that you would understand that I am talking about geopolitics as being a major problem and not the only problem - you know better.

Anyways, don't you see that things are changing? There seems to be less and less of that. And there will always be sick people who kill for petty reasons.

They will be given a choice to continue the way they are or not.

Ah.
I get it, now.
I was about to ask who the fuck gave you the right to choose ideologies for everyone else. But that's the purpose of the spaceship. You own it, you control it, you get to decide who gets into your lifeboat. Everyone left on the sinking ship deserves to go down with the ship, exactly because they're unwilling to become like you.
Handy. That makes it their fault that they die, not your callous disregard for anyone's right to believe or act differently from you.

At some point rights must be taken away. Extreme liberalism ends up contradicting itself. My right to kill someone goes against their right to live. This was a quick lesson after the French Revolution on how far you can take liberalism.

At some point there must be limits to freedoms set in place. Hate crimes versus freedom of speech is an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech .

This goes for you too Keith: do you want to stay and support corporately controlled governments that have no major rational interests in improving the world and more interests in being richer (or "greater" or re-establish being a "great nation") than everyone else by bleeding their resources and economies dry, or do you want to be involved with something that is more dedicated to progressing humankind by organizing and structuring a civilization that prioritizes in peace and happiness for its inhabitants while remembering lessons learnt here on Earth akin to what the Founding Fathers did?

Um, neither, really.
I think your colony will start off with grand ideas that ignore too much reality to accomplish anything but stave off the same problems you're leaving behind.

Well Keith, you seem to be saying that it is impossible to even try which is an extremely arrogant and defeatist thing to say. Maybe there are people who know more than you about certain subjects, and maybe they can see a way that it would work like the Founding Fathers saw a better system for what became very close to what they envisioned.

Most importantly, what are you doing to change the world for the better, next to nothing? Your bravery, passion and selflessness is unmatched as a soldier. But doing nothing to change the world really just reaffirms that everything is the way it should be in the world which then means that you are letting and supporting all of the terrible atrocities to continue by being a cog that is needed for the world to continue the way that it is.

 

[ryan]

If we're going to cordon people off in their own colonies, wouldn't undersea domes work much better? They could be set up exactly the same way as space stations, but at a fraction of the cost and if you don't feel that the libertarian utopia you're living in fits your outlook, the communist utopia is just a quick submarine ride away.

Geopolitics is still going to be an issue. Space is practically an infinite domain, so I think space is still a better solution to geopolitical conflicts.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If we're going to cordon people off in their own colonies, wouldn't undersea domes work much better? They could be set up exactly the same way as space stations, but at a fraction of the cost and if you don't feel that the libertarian utopia you're living in fits your outlook, the communist utopia is just a quick submarine ride away.

Geopolitics is still going to be an issue. Space is practically an infinite domain, so I think space is still a better solution to geopolitical conflicts.

Well, until my descendants get themselves a ship with an FTL drive. Then all their space station are belong to us.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The point is if non-religiously centered societies break away from the religiously centered societies, then there may be less conflict for both societies. It won't stop all conflicts, but it will at least separate two major opponents.

Those conflicts may fade. THe problem is, you'll have people. People will make their own conflicts wherever they go.
You're not solving anything.
Just pretending that this fixes something.

And if people are willing to put their religious priorities behind them, then they are welcome aboard.

So you've given up on people who don't share your priorities.

What is the alternative, force them to share my priorities?

So much time and effort you put into your lifeboat schemes and your immortality dreams, you never consider maybe some sort of education scheme? Promotion of enlightened self-interest for mutual cooperation? It's a simple dichotomy to you?

Instead of letting people die off in Afghanistan, Iraq, much of Africa, Palestine, Israel, Ukraine, Mexico (gang violence), Ecuador, Honduras, etc. we should just move them into Canada and the U.S.

So if they can't get along, run away. To Canada or a spaceship.

Same solution, someone else's expense.

What it stands for is a very expensive genocide, ryan.
At least, according to you.

trolling

What? You're saying Earth's headed towards destruction. Lets not solve everyone's problem, let's just solve mine (or ours). Eject and let them destruction away.
Why?
Because they don't think like I want them to.

Is this any different from a Final Solution? If Easterners won't wake up and adopt Western values they deserve to die just like the Jews who wouldn't become Christains?
I don't see any difference, ryan.

You'll become even more tyrannical than the Taliban.
You'll have to. You won't have room or resources for dissent. Your colony won't be able to support spinning off a sub-colony for anyone who doesn't like the original colony.

For even the first colony to work, we will have to be able to convert energy and materials into finished products at the push of a button. 3D printing is closing in on this.

Which still takes energy and other resources.
And that's just handwaiving away the problem that there won't be room to support or allow any dissent.

The idea is that a system will be set in place to deal with these types of issues. It won't be perfect, and they may have to learn a little as they go. But they will try to foresee as many issues as problems and build a system that can deal with them.

Fine.
Show me the system. Don't just appeal to future developments in judicial or administrative developments. Where will this (near) perfect society come from? And why couldn't it work on Earth?

This allows us to gain more control than we ever have before.

Just as i said, you'll need to establish a tyranny to keep this control.
Which is kinda counter to the 'western' values of freedom you think need to be in this lifeboat, anyway.

Come on Keith, I would hope that you would understand that I am talking about geopolitics as being a major problem and not the only problem - you know better.

Then you're packing 'small' problems into a tiny colony. Which magnifies the small problems, right?

At some point rights must be taken away.

So much for Western ideology being preserved in your spaceship....

At some point there must be limits to freedoms set in place.

There are, yes. Rights are not infinite. They extend only to the point where they infringe on the rights of others. That's basic Western Ideology. But you're quite willing to decide who gets what rights?

.

Well Keith, you seem to be saying that it is impossible to even try

No, ryan, i have never, ever said that about any of your grand plans to save yourself, all humanity or a special slice of humanity.

What i am saying is that your plan is big on goals and kinda blind on details, including many that you're quite willing to assume will just not be problems, and i think that'll grow to bite you on the ass.

I am saying that THIS plan is a rather expensive way to doom a subset of humanity into having the same problems humanity has always had in conditions where such problems will be lethal to the entire colony.

I'm not saying don't try, but i am saying this is not the way to try it.

Most importantly, what are you doing to change the world for the better, next to nothing?

Ah. I can't criticize your attempt if i'm not doing better?
I can't criticize art, either, according to some artists unless my own art is better than theirs. It's an interesting defense. You're not improving your stance or your knowledge or actually providing solutions to any problem i identify, just make your defense an attack on me, personally. Good one.

Your bravery, passion and selflessness is unmatched as a soldier.

Soldier? Wait, i haven't called YOU any names, have i? Why you gotta double-down on the personal attack?

 

[Underseer]

Holy sweet IPU's tits on a popsicle stick. You don't like religion, therefore you want to leave the planet?

Seriously?

I see this on a smaller scale all the time. People leave to another city thinking it will solve all of their problems, only to find the same problems in the new city. Why? Because the problem wasn't the old city, they were creating their own problems. You're proposing more or less the same thing here, but on a much more expensive and wasteful scale.

Religion isn't the fucking problem. We are.

Religion is a symptom, not the disease. The real problem is sloppy thinking. Religion isn't the source of our sloppy thinking, it's the product of our sloppy thinking. Plenty of research in neuroscience shows that we're all sloppy thinkers most of the time; the best of us just get a few more moments of clarity than the others. Even when we think we're being cold and calculating, we're mostly just making snap decisions based on instinct, emotion, and a terrifyingly large list of cognitive biases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Even if you gathered up all the atheists, put us on a spaceship, and moved us to another planet, you would still end up with most of the same problems. There might be differences in some of the details, but you'd still have most of the same crap going on. How can I make such a prediction with such confidence? Because we already watched more or less the same thing happen with the Soviet Union.

Religion was almost entirely out of the picture as an influence on the government, and yet as Hitchens pointed out, they turned an economic philosophy into a religion, then proceeded to commit all the same crimes we associate with organized religion including proselytizing and punishing people (sometimes severely) for blasphemy. They had priests and preachers and missionaries and even goddamned prophets. Communism-as-religion had exactly the same ties to the government that many religions once did (and in some places still do). Fuck, at one point they even forbade scientists to work from the assumption that evolution is true.

To me this proves that religion isn't the problem. Human beings are the problem. We are the problem.

How about before running away to another planet, you try to address the real problem: figuring out how to better teach critical thinking to our children? Solve that problem, and your atheist space colony will actually be viable. But then, if you solve that problem, there's no reason to leave the planet, is there?