Generation starships and their internal society structure

[Nyrath]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

I'm not actually the choir. I have... differences with the Libertarians.

 

sorry to hear that. It is just that

 

In 1892' date=' almost all North American Nations (California, Canada, Mexico, Newfoundland, Cuba, etc) join together to form the NAC, a new nation whose government has almost no powers and which allows its citizenry to do as it pleases (so long as they don't violate anyone else's rights).[/quote']

 

sounded so much like

 

You establish the rules so that people cannot impose their will or inflict harm upon other persons any more than the bare minimum of what is absolutely necessary, and demand that people keep their business to themselves.

 

"I don't care what goes on in your house between consenting adults, so long as it doesn't get on my lawn or in my face."

[Sundog]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

I don't think that's possible. Eventually' date=' the dictator will impose his will without regard to the will of the subjects, and he is no longer just.[/quote']

 

Umm...no, that's not what makes something unjust. That would make it unrepresentative, but that's pretty much true of any autocracy or dictatorship, and the two are not anything like the same.

 

As an example: A horrible crime is committed. A suspect is found, a pariah to the community and hated man. There is great public desire to see this man hang. However, the dictator determines that there is insufficient evidence to convict the suspect of being the perpetrator of the crime, and releases him. An unrepresentative act, but a just one.

 

 

 

Then you've widened the catagory from "dictator" to "autocrat".

 

Yes, that was the point. You didn't seem to be making a distinction.

[Yansuf]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

A dictatorship, by its very nature, has no rule of law, no checks, no balances, no limits on the exercise of power, and little hope for justice.

 

At least a democracy can strive to have those things. However, in the situation at hand, there is no hope for a just society. A significant minority will end up being trampled on by the rest.

 

I think that you are confusing "democracy" with "constitutionally limited government."

In a pure democracy, 51% of the people can vote to space the other 49%, and if is legal.

[Kristopher]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Is that not you enforcing your will upon everyone who disagrees?

 

I expressed an opinion, which does not, by itself, force anyone to do anything.

 

No matter; I was interested in the answer when I first stumbled across that (I've been playing catch-up with this thread), but now I am no longer interested. It's nothing personal, and it's not meant to be insulting. I actually have several tabs open with quotes of yours that I _wanted_ to address, until I ran across these two:

 

 

So which is it?

 

Which is better? Stand for what you believe in (so long as it doesn't disagree with you, anyway), or live doing something you do not want to do? Serving someone, or patiently waiting for your entire race to die in the bloated red cherry of your once-yellow sun?

 

How do you propose to have it both ways? Death on the G-ship is unacceptable. It is completely wrong to have to have to die as opposed to doing something you don't want to do (though really, I don't push that far. I suspect that malcontents will be few enough that allowances can be made, even if it's just keeping a list of who's unhappy doing what and offering them some trade-outs. Sheesh. This jumping straight to "the horror of subjugation" from that-- pretty intense. Pretty jumpy, but pretty intense.)

 

So having to die instead of doing something you don't want to do is completely wrong. But then again, it's better to die standing than live ---

 

whatever it was.

 

By the same token then, killing is wrong and governments of all stripe evil, and it's better to stand for what you believe in. Supposing that something I believe in is living under a different government? It should, then, be better for me to stage revolution-- which will probably result in a lot of killing one way or the other-- than to continue to live in subjugation under a dictator?

 

But that can't be, because killing is wrong, even if it is better to die killing than to live "unfree."

 

It goes on and on in circles, because Moral Absolutism only works in a society of One. Well, it could work in a society of one hundred, provided ninety-nine of them are dead. Pointless arguing is an immoral use of time that we can't get rebated, yet it seems to be the #2 purpose of the entire internet.

 

My apologies. I have digressed far further than I intended.

 

Indeed, you digressed far away from actually addressing what was in my statement that you quoted, into addressing some odd inferrence you derived therefrom.

 

I _had_ been curious to hear your position. I have heard on this thread an others numerous things that you are against. I'm getting the idea that it might be you are against _all_ things, which is perfectly fine; I merely wanted to hear (read) it stated.

 

Then I found this:

 

 

And I lost all interest.

 

While I am certain it is only rude, and not immoral, to call out every single methodology as inferior, corruptible, unworkable, wrong, a-moral, flawed-- whatever-- without actually stating your own position with any sort of clarity, it certainly makes discussion difficult.

 

However, at the point where you are putting words into everyone else's mouths, it makes it pointless, and therefore of little interest and less value.

 

and possibly immoral. I guess that depends on your still-unstated values.

 

Oh for cripe's sake. It's not "putting words into someone's mouth" to assert that their posted concepts have inevitable consequences, even if they don't realize it.

 

You + molehill = mountain, evidently.

[Kristopher]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

I think that you are confusing "democracy" with "constitutionally limited government."

In a pure democracy, 51% of the people can vote to space the other 49%, and if is legal.

 

And if I had actually said "In a hypothetical pure democracy, no one is ever allowed to do anything bad to anyone else", you might have a point. But I didn't.

 

A democracy that's striving to be better than "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner" is almost always going to be a "constitutionally limited government".

[Kristopher]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Not only can it be done, it has been done. The Romans gave Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus absolute power in 458 BCE when the bulk of the Roman army was lead into an ambush and besieged by the Aequians in the Alban Hills. He instituted universal conscription, ordering every man of military age to report to the Field of Mars by the end of the day. He personally lead the infantry while his deputy, Lucius Tarquitius, led the cavalry. The double prong attack broke through the siege and allowed Cincinnatus' conscript militia to join forces with the regular army. He accepted surrender from the bulk of the Aequian troops rather than slaughtering them. He then disbanded his army, returned power to the elected consuls, Minucius Esquilinus and Horatius Pulvillus, and was back on his farm sixteen days after being nominated Dictator.

 

Absolute power can corrupt, not must corrupt.

 

The conscription was a good start on going bad. Other than that, he seems to have gotten out before the inherent conflict got to him.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Many many words, many complaints, many "no one understands like I do"s.

 

Still nothing to actually point at as why, or how you'd make it different.

 

 

 

And no; me + mountain doesn't equal molehill.

 

Me + unsubstantiated banter = inability to assign credibility.

[Clonus]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Going back to an earlier statement, moral relativism has nothing to do with this. Moral relativism is when you excuse behaviour on the grounds that the person engaging in it is behaving according to his own culture's ideas of what is ethical, which is not the case here. Rather this is circumstantial ethics, which is when you take something that would be wrong under some circumstances and argue that it might be right under other circumstances. As in it is wrong to shoot someone, but it's OK to shoot someone when it's a war and he's an enemy soldier. It's wrong to drown someone for being crazy, but it's OK to throw them off the lifeboat they are about to capsize and kill everyone.

 

That being said, the whole issue is a threadjack. The subject of whether it is right or wrong to use a generation ship, has less than nothing to do with with the issue of what the possible approaches to organizing one might be. The guy who suggested feudalism was NOT suggesting that it would be right, just that it would be an approach someone might try and might work to achieve the stated goal of getting a starter population to destination. Whether's it's morally right or not is of no matter. The issue is whether it work, or whether it would end up with everyone dead, and possibly whether anyone conceivably would try it.

[Kristopher]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Going back to an earlier statement, moral relativism has nothing to do with this. Moral relativism is when you excuse behaviour on the grounds that the person engaging in it is behaving according to his own culture's ideas of what is ethical, which is not the case here. Rather this is circumstantial ethics, which is when you take something that would be wrong under some circumstances and argue that it might be right under other circumstances. As in it is wrong to shoot someone, but it's OK to shoot someone when it's a war and he's an enemy soldier. It's wrong to drown someone for being crazy, but it's OK to throw them off the lifeboat they are about to capsize and kill everyone.

 

That being said, the whole issue is a threadjack. The subject of whether it is right or wrong to use a generation ship, has less than nothing to do with with the issue of what the possible approaches to organizing one might be. The guy who suggested feudalism was NOT suggesting that it would be right, just that it would be an approach someone might try and might work to achieve the stated goal of getting a starter population to destination. Whether's it's morally right or not is of no matter. The issue is whether it work, or whether it would end up with everyone dead, and possibly whether anyone conceivably would try it.

 

If that's the case, then I've misunderstood, because at least some of the posts seemed, to me, to be suggesting "best practices" for structuring such a society.

 

But you're right, and I appologize for my part in making this a debate over what should be done instead of a discussion of what might be done.

 

Personally, I don't like what I think could easily happen, but I guess that's neither here nor there for this discussion.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Clonus, I am afraid I have to wait a bit before I can rep you.

 

And thank you.

[McCoy]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

In the meantime, I believe we've found the first qualified passenger.

 

Man "wins" World of Warcraft

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Man "wins" World of Warcraft

 

Wow.

 

That's just....

 

that's just creepy, Man....

 

(I know: old news; Finals Week has kept me busy)

[Clonus]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

http://www.webscription.net/p-844-slow-train-to-arcturus-arc.aspx

[The Weapon]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

I'm not so sure. There was a news item recently about the dangers of diseases mutating on long space voyages into new lethal strains.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091104-space-diseases-mutants-mars.html

 

 

That's for ships that aren't sufficiently protected from radiation and generations ships would be. They're big enough they can have thick walls. In any case most of the time they're in interstellar space where radiation is if anything too low (humans need a certain amount of ionising radiation). in addition generation ships have pseudo-gravity probably in the form of centrifugal force.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

After reading this thread, I think a generation ship is a bad idea.

[McCoy]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

After reading this thread' date=' I think a generation ship is a bad idea.[/quote']

Unless it's the only option. If FLT is impossible and cold sleep impractical, the choices then are limited to generation ships or allowing our species to die with our star. Generation Ships then become the worst option except for all the others.

[Markdoc]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

I have two questions.

 

1. Is there a reason you say this?

 

2. Do you care whether or not it's true?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has a question: if there is a reason, what is it?

 

The association of Darwin with slavery is a lie you find some creationists and "Intelligent design" wackos spreading to try and smear the author since they are unable to find any science to refute his work. It's useful primarily as an example of a) how low some people can go and how profound is their historical ignorance: slavery had been outlawed in Darwin's England and it was widely regarded in his own society as cruel and unjust. However, even by this standard Darwin was himself an abolitionist and outspoken critic of slavery. You can find some of his own writings on the topic here

 

Not of course, that this has anything to do with G-ships or benevolent dictatorships - just sayin'

 

cheers, Mark

[Clonus]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Unless it's the only option. If FLT is impossible and cold sleep impractical' date=' the choices then are limited to generation ships or allowing our species to die with our star. Generation Ships then become the worst option except for all the others.[/quote']

 

Other options: Genetically engineer ourselves to have long enough lifespans that we can actually do it in one generation.

 

Send out colonization ships loaded with sperm and eggs. Let robots raise the first generation.

[McCoy]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Other options: Genetically engineer ourselves to have long enough lifespans that we can actually do it in one generation.

 

Send out colonization ships loaded with sperm and eggs. Let robots raise the first generation.

Good points!

[Ragitsu]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

AI leader? Robot nannies? Cutting off the intellectual legs of the populace? Dictatorships? Threats of violence to force compliance? Sheesh!

[Clonus]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

AI leader? Robot nannies? Cutting off the intellectual legs of the populace? Dictatorships? Threats of violence to force compliance? Sheesh!

 

Not a lot of cultures don't have threats of violence to force compliance.

[The Weapon]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

The problem with generation ships is who gets stuff when we land? Having more stuff means you can devote a lot less time to survival and a lot more to economic, political and population expansion. Economic, political, military and other elites on Newworld are descendents of the people who "landed well". That is to say who grabbed a lot of stuff and kept control of it after landing day.

 

For this reason feudalism would be a disaster for a generation ship. Lots of guys who think they're entitled because of who their father was and desperate to keep their families power against their enemies who are similarly desperate is a recipe for civil war. Autocracies no better because every one of the Autocrats courtiers knows that the key to remaining powerful is to be essential to him and doing that after landing day means "landing well". Sure Autocrats could crack down on looting but the prime offenders are those who are most able to evade responsibility, his own advisers and "servants". Anyone powerful enough to crack down on real looters is powerful enough to become one. Hell if the looters are powerful enough and the Autocrat cracks down seriously (instead of one of those fake crackdowns where a few pawns get recycled and small stashes are found) there might be a new Autocrat. Check all of the guard's guns to make sure they don't have the same faulty safety catch.

Any system maintained through violence will have the problem that the violent men want to land as well as possible. That means that pulling a gun in the cargo bay on landing day is an excellent strategy. You don't even have to fire it, if the Autocrat starts a fight he opens himself up to battlefield treachery or losing too many men to stop the next rebel, who could be only minutes away. Not to mention that his cronies will want lots of stuff and if everything hit by stray rounds can't be used to bribe them to stay on his side.

 

Equipment hoarding is a problem even if the culture is "democratic" because whoever "lands well" will end up with the power to influence political power to a large extent. Election spending and the sheer economic clout of those who landed well will mean that they are far more important than those who merely got along OK. I'll try to find the study I saw that says modern US senators aren't affected AT ALL by what the poorest third of their constituents think. Heck if the problem is bad enough the families of the "well landed" will have the industrial, economic and even military might to challenge the state itself. So good luck getting them to agree to give that up.

 

The solution really is to have a system where everyone believes that having as much loot as possible after landing day doesn't set your status in stone for all eternity. You'll never be able to remove the advantages of gaining capital but a relatively free market and limited sate will mean new challengers will be able to compete with the established families. That's impossible if they own the government, and they will to some extent if the government is powerful.

[McCoy]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Not a lot of cultures don't have threats of violence to force compliance.

I'm not aware of any, though in its mildest forms the violence can be emotional & economic, such as shunning practiced by the Amish.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Not a lot of cultures don't have threats of violence to force compliance.

 

Currently. You'd hope (or think), by the time we as a people achieve a spaceflight that makes colonization possible, that we'd have gotten our act together by then.

[Yansuf]

Re: Generation starships and their internal society structure

 

Currently. You'd hope (or think)' date=' by the time we as a people achieve a spaceflight that makes colonization possible, that we'd have gotten our act together by then.[/quote']

 

Why?

I can understand why you might hope it, but there is no basis that I can see to think it.

And I'm not sure why to hope for it, since I doubt that I would like the resulting society.