Political/Religious Space Colonies?

[Markdoc]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I'm not offended, but ....

 

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

 

To borrow from the above:

 

From 1788 to 1840, 150,000+ convicts were transported to Australia. Dwindling numbers of convicts arrived until 1869 (maybe several thousand total), when transportation ceased completely.

 

HOWEVER, all that pales into insignificance compared to what happened during the Gold Rush era. In 1852 alone, 370,000 immigrants arrived here.

 

Saying Australia was populated by convicts can make for a few laughs, but that's all it is. The truth is considerably more complicated - the first European settlements were (mostly) penal colonies, but all that began changing very early on.

 

Yeah, none of the penal colonies actually survived very long, unless - as was the case of Australia and what later became the US - they were able to demonstrate the potential to be financially viable. In Australia's case, it wasn't the gold rush, which came later, but the demonstration that you could grow high quality wool - and that there were vast areas of "unowned" grassland where sheep-farming could be relatively easily set up.

 

Edit: of course by then the incorrigible criminality of the australian mindset had already developed, never to be eradicated!

 

cheers, Mark

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

The separate homeland seems to be working out pretty well for Israel. It isn't perfect there, but the people there have carved out a place of their own and have managed to defend it pretty well.

 

Also there is a difference between, hard core ideological zealots moving somewhere to build their ideological utiopia, and forcefully shipping malcontents to a new place to live. In the first case, the people who are going are ready to face the hardships to build their new society. In the latter case it's just a bunch of people who may or may not be ready to live somewhere else.

 

Careful anthropological research has now established that not all the people in Israel are Jewish.

 

 

Now, in practice, we see the future of the Palestinian Mandate pretty clearly as a single, unified post-racial, multicultural,* multi-religious Jewish state. And we can at once see how far that is from the notion of a bunch of people who are racially/religiously/culturally "Jewish" together getting into a ship and rocketing off to 82 Eridani III to found their bastion of purity.

 

*Are we ready yet for "post-cultural?"

[Nevelon]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Another thing to consider about religious/cultural colonies is that many of them won't want to leave. This planet is where all the holy lands are, where was born, and happened. From a racial standpoint, -THIS- is -OURS-, where we have been since time began, and we don't want to leave. They would be more then happy to see everyone else ship off, and leave the only planet that matters -Earth- to them.

[Escafarc]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I'm not offended, but ....

 

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

 

To borrow from the above:

 

From 1788 to 1840, 150,000+ convicts were transported to Australia. Dwindling numbers of convicts arrived until 1869 (maybe several thousand total), when transportation ceased completely.

 

HOWEVER, all that pales into insignificance compared to what happened during the Gold Rush era. In 1852 alone, 370,000 immigrants arrived here.

 

Saying Australia was populated by convicts can make for a few laughs, but that's all it is. The truth is considerably more complicated - the first European settlements were (mostly) penal colonies, but all that began changing very early on.

I wasn't actually talking about the penal colonies(OT Georgia started as one) per se. I was thinking more of Debtors and people who had commited a social faux pas that were forced/encouraged to move someplace else. Those outnumbered convicts by a large margin. Most of the former British Empire has a history of this.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Another thing to consider about religious/cultural colonies is that many of them won't want to leave. This planet is where all the holy lands are' date=' where was born, and happened. From a racial standpoint, -THIS- is -OURS-, where we have been since time began, and we don't want to leave. They would be more then happy to see everyone else ship off, and leave the only planet that matters -Earth- to them.[/quote']For historically-based religious and cultural groups, this is absolutely true. Jews and Muslims are at the top of this list, and someone who knows more than I do about comparative religion can probably list several Native American, East Asian, and other religious beliefs to which this applies. But then there are the religious cults, the "purist-retreat philosophy" Christians, the "freedom from religion" atheists, and possibly even some Buddhists who would like to have a society built on their own philosophies, and these would be good fodder for a religion-based colony.

 

That's not even considering the groups who want to build their colony based on pure Communism, Luddite philosophy, militarism, neo-feudalism, or even some other philosophy or system that hasn't been developed yet.

 

If we're the only sapient civilization in the Milky Way and we discover fifty thousand planets to colonize, you can expect we'll have at least a few dozen such places.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Another thing to consider about religious/cultural colonies is that many of them won't want to leave. This planet is where all the holy lands are' date=' where was born, and happened. From a racial standpoint, -THIS- is -OURS-, where we have been since time began, and we don't want to leave. They would be more then happy to see everyone else ship off, and leave the only planet that matters -Earth- to them.[/quote']

 

My thinking is that in cases where different groups are fighting over territory, whether it's holy or contested for other reasons, the winners will be the ones staying on Earth; space colonies will be founded by the vanquished. Tibet's a possible example for the future history in my campaign. But then, any excuse for Bhuddists in space is a good one.

[Tasha]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Careful anthropological research has now established that not all the people in Israel are Jewish.

 

 

Now, in practice, we see the future of the Palestinian Mandate pretty clearly as a single, unified post-racial, multicultural,* multi-religious Jewish state. And we can at once see how far that is from the notion of a bunch of people who are racially/religiously/culturally "Jewish" together getting into a ship and rocketing off to 82 Eridani III to found their bastion of purity.

 

*Are we ready yet for "post-cultural?"

 

But when the first Israeli settlers got into those first ships to go to Israel. They had every intention of creating a Jewish state. They had gone though hell and wanted to find a place where people wouldn't do that to them again.

 

In some ways I think we are talking past one another. I think that a group of people who had enough motive to uproot themselves would indeed get aboard a starship to create a new civilization where their people would be welcome. The reality of what such a colony would become in 50-100 years is a quite different thing than what would motivate the first colonists. The thing that would change such a thing would be other colonists landing on the same planet and setting up a settlement that disliked the original colonists (due to bigotry or jealousy about their prosperity).

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I wasn't actually talking about the penal colonies(OT Georgia started as one) per se. I was thinking more of Debtors and people who had commited a social faux pas that were forced/encouraged to move someplace else. Those outnumbered convicts by a large margin.

 

But both together were not NEARLY as large as the influx during the Gold Rush. My own understanding is that the latter at least doubled Australia's population within the first decade.

 

Most of the former British Empire has a history of this.

 

No doubt, though I question wheter those two specific factors (debtors and remittance men) are as significant as some others mentioned.

[The Weapon]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Whoever goes, think a lot of them won't make it. Look at how many Utopian colonies tried to make it in the American West during the 19th century. Oneida Community commune is of personal interest to me because of early attempt at human eugenics. I'm not aware of any of the utopian movements surviving except the Mormons and the Hutterites. (I really think the Hutterites have a lot to teach future colonist about organizing groups to mimimize conflicts and work for a common purpose. Unfortunately their methods break down when the group reaches about a hundred people.)

 

The Catholic Church would be among the first to launch a colony, followed by anyone else who didn't want to practice birth control. The hardline Communist would like the opportunity to prove to the rest of us that a managed economy does work. Hutterites, Mennonites and Amish? Maybe a "turn-key" planet with no terraforming needed.

 

Racial seperatist? In my experience would be more interested in getting "the other guys" to leave than going themselves.

 

Racial seperatists tried to set up colonies recently in the US. For instance the Weaver family set up a house in the woods. The problems they had were economic, they simply didn't have enough people who wanted to move away from population centres to get economies of scale. That's how they ended up making bombs for an FBI informant.

[The Weapon]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I honestly hadn't thought of the 'racial purity' angle. Maybe I should work on being more cynical.

 

However, I'm working on a future history in which humanity has re-engineered itself (or parts of itself, anyway) to survive in alien environments (zero-g, underwater, thin atmospheres, etc.) and there are a number of other 'variants' of humanity in existence. Will racial divisions still mean anything when these things are possible -- or will the old prejudices be replaced by new ones?

 

Then there are the real aliens, beings so far removed from humanity they're not playable as PC's in my campaign. When faced with something that vaguely resembles a 400kg ammonite with a few extra tentacles and a superior attitude, will anyone still care if the guy who just moved in next door has a different skin color?

 

Well... at least I can hope.

 

 

Yeah but if there are genetically engineered humans someone will dislike them, or some of the variants, or some of the variants won't like the originals or other variants. When somebody lives 300 years and whose time preference (desire to get things now as opposed to later) is about a tenth of normal humans people are going to find it hard to relate to them. Not to mention the ones whose IQs are literally off the chart. I could see large scale movements to isolate and discriminate against such people causing at least some to flee to new worlds. Or "pure humans" could flee potential or actual domination by people who are lets face it, better at almost everything. This is particularly true if the "genies" are obvious, making it hard to prevent interbreeding without living on another planet.

[Secret Master]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Racial seperatists tried to set up colonies recently in the US. For instance the Weaver family set up a house in the woods. The problems they had were economic, they simply didn't have enough people who wanted to move away from population centres to get economies of scale. That's how they ended up making bombs for an FBI informant.

 

I call BS on that statement. The Weaver family didn't have a particularly coherent plan when they moved, other than that they were fundamentalists of the LDS variety who believed that the "end was near." (Which, when you think about it, wasn't far from the truth.) Weaver was believed to be a white supremacist by the FBI, but he's always denied it. Oh, he got along with Aryan Nations on a personal level, but disagreed with them philosophically on various things. According to his daughter he kind of had to: they were his closest neighbors, and they'd built a "really nice" picnic ground on their compound that he liked to take his children to.

 

As a rural American let me say this: no matter how strange they are, when you live in the countryside you have to get along with your neighbors. My closest neighbors are Burning Man. I get along with them, even though I'm not personally a bisexual druggie pyromaniac. But, hey, they're my closest neighbors... and they've built a really nice picnic ground at Black Rock Station.

 

But I digress. The charge against Randy Weaver "was transfer of a short-barreled shotgun without a license." Not bomb making. I've read a lot of things about Ruby Ridge and never read anything about bombs. Furthermore, it was entrapment: the ATF wanted him to join Aryan Nations so that he could be an informant. Weaver refused... and refused... and made a big public stink about refusing. Which was stupid and convinced the Powers That Be that he needed to be made an example of. Which led to something horrible for everyone involved.

 

Anyhow, the Weaver family really weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, and are thus not a great example of anything. Trust me: I'm a "survivalist." Many of my friends are "survivalists." I live "separately" from mainstream society on an isolated ranch. Why? Because I don't like the direction that modern urban civilization is headed in. And you know what? I would a) never saw off a shotgun for anyone, and hire a lawyer if I were stupid enough to get caught doing it by the ATF!

 

(My source: Jon Rohnson's excellent Them: Adventures With Extremists)

 

In any case, there are several excellent science fiction novels about exactly what you gentlemen are talking about. I think Kirenyaga by Mike Resnick is the best one of the lot, but the whole backstory of the Multicolored Land series is based on the same premise.

 

-Jason Walters, resident survivalist (not that I commonly use the term)

[whitekeys]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

But when the first Israeli settlers got into those first ships to go to Israel. They had every intention of creating a Jewish state. They had gone though hell and wanted to find a place where people wouldn't do that to them again.

 

In some ways I think we are talking past one another. I think that a group of people who had enough motive to uproot themselves would indeed get aboard a starship to create a new civilization where their people would be welcome. The reality of what such a colony would become in 50-100 years is a quite different thing than what would motivate the first colonists. The thing that would change such a thing would be other colonists landing on the same planet and setting up a settlement that disliked the original colonists (due to bigotry or jealousy about their prosperity).

I'm going to have to disagree. In fact, I think the idea of any group feeling confortable with leaving earth and colonizing a new planet is absurd, especially for reasons of religion. Religions are too based on Earth having been created by whatever diety. Why would they leave? The whole Israel Palestine conflict is over property, a special sacred place on earth. They've been homeless for hundreds of years and have just finally found a place they can call home... I doubt they're going to leave it again for no reason.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I'm going to have to disagree. In fact' date=' I think the idea of any group feeling confortable with leaving earth and colonizing a new planet is absurd, especially for reasons of religion. Religions are too based on Earth having been created by whatever diety.[/quote']

 

Not all religions have a sacred homeland. The Mormons moved around quite a bit before they settled in Salt Lake City. It's not hard to imagine a splinter group leaving to found New Deseret (or whatever).

[Markdoc]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I'm going to have to disagree. In fact' date=' I think the idea of any group feeling confortable with leaving earth and colonizing a new planet is absurd, especially for reasons of religion. Religions are too based on Earth having been created by whatever diety. Why would they leave? The whole Israel Palestine conflict is over property, a special sacred place on earth. They've been homeless for hundreds of years and have just finally found a place they can call home... I doubt they're going to leave it again for no reason.[/quote']

 

Oh, I can imagine groups wanting to go: it's just that the groups which are sufficiently alienated/marginalised to want to go are the groups who are almost certainly too poor to afford it.

 

As for the Israeli question I can imagine multiple reasons why they might want to leave Israel - most of them involving invasion. However, whether they'd want to move off-planet ... I dunno. It might be nice to avoid anti-semitism by simply leaving all the anti-semites behind, but I suspect things would have to be pretty bad for most people to want to leave Earth.

 

cheers, Mark

[dmjalund]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I'm going to have to disagree. In fact' date=' I think the idea of any group feeling confortable with leaving earth and colonizing a new planet is absurd, especially for reasons of religion. Religions are too based on Earth having been created by whatever diety. Why would they leave? The whole Israel Palestine conflict is over property, a special sacred place on earth. They've been homeless for hundreds of years and have just finally found a place they can call home... I doubt they're going to leave it again for no reason.[/quote']One word: Scientology

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I'm going to have to disagree. In fact' date=' I think the idea of any group feeling confortable with leaving earth and colonizing a new planet is absurd, especially for reasons of religion. Religions are too based on Earth having been created by whatever diety. Why would they leave? The whole Israel Palestine conflict is over property, a special sacred place on earth. They've been homeless for hundreds of years and have just finally found a place they can call home... I doubt they're going to leave it again for no reason.[/quote']

Not all religions have a sacred homeland. The Mormons moved around quite a bit before they settled in Salt Lake City. It's not hard to imagine a splinter group leaving to found New Deseret (or whatever).

One word: Scientology

These are just a couple of examples. Also, nearly any "doomsday survivalist" cult will want to find a way to get away from Earth before it explodes or ends in whatever other way is "destined."

 

You're correct to an extent, whitekeys, in that adherents to most of the familiar religions will want to stay on Earth because of their spiritual connection to either the planet itself, or to a particular part or aspect of it.

 

And of course there are always the atheists, who may want to escape these "religious nuts" and practice "freedom from religion."

[Tasha]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Oh, I can imagine groups wanting to go: it's just that the groups which are sufficiently alienated/marginalised to want to go are the groups who are almost certainly too poor to afford it.

 

As for the Israeli question I can imagine multiple reasons why they might want to leave Israel - most of them involving invasion. However, whether they'd want to move off-planet ... I dunno. It might be nice to avoid anti-semitism by simply leaving all the anti-semites behind, but I suspect things would have to be pretty bad for most people to want to leave Earth.

 

cheers, Mark

 

That being the basic premise of my post that Whitekeys quoted.

 

I think that some people's opinions are being clouded by their personal feelings on the subject. It's really hard for someone who is comfortable living where they are, what it feels like to have that urge to move somewhere else. To uproot yourself and to go to someplace new and live in a different way with different people. You don't even need to be particularly unhappy with your current home. There's just something telling you that it's time to go someplace new. I think that is what drives many settlers. If you don't feel the same way, then I can't explain it to you. If a space ship appeared tomorrow and offered to move me and my partner, pets etc to another planet. I think I would go. It would be a nice challenge and a nice change to my life.

 

thanks, I would rep you, but i must spread more around blah blah.

 

Tasha

[Tasha]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

These are just a couple of examples. Also, nearly any "doomsday survivalist" cult will want to find a way to get away from Earth before it explodes or ends in whatever other way is "destined."

 

You're correct to an extent, whitekeys, in that adherents to most of the familiar religions will want to stay on Earth because of their spiritual connection to either the planet itself, or to a particular part or aspect of it.

 

And of course there are always the atheists, who may want to escape these "religious nuts" and practice "freedom from religion."

 

I am not sure that any part of the planet matters very much to Christians to the point that they would be bound to stay on earth. I think that they would take "god" with them no matter what planet they settled on and give thanks that god provided them a new world.

 

A planet of Scientific Knowledge, where empirical proof trumped irrational 'faith'. That could be an interesting place to visit. Such a planet could be quite the brain drain on Earth.

[dmjalund]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

A planet of Scientific Knowledge' date=' where empirical proof trumped irrational 'faith'. That could be an interesting place to visit. Such a planet could be quite the brain drain on Earth.[/quote']I'd worry that it might also trump 'irrational' morality

 

"but it's for the good of SCIENCE!"

[Tasha]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I'd worry that it might also trump 'irrational' morality

 

"but it's for the good of SCIENCE!"

 

That is a danger, but treating others like you would like to be treated is a quite logical way to live. One doesn't need a god to know that.

[dmjalund]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

That is a danger' date=' but treating others like you would like to be treated is a quite logical way to live. One doesn't need a god to know that.[/quote']That makes an unscientific assumption that others are just like you

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

That is a danger' date=' but treating others like you would like to be treated is a quite logical way to live. One doesn't need a god to know that.[/quote']There are differences in that assumption. A look at the history of atheist states like Vietnam, the People's Republic of China, and the Soviet Union should tell you that.

[dmjalund]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

There are differences in that assumption. A look at the history of atheist states like Vietnam' date=' the People's Republic of China, and the Soviet Union should tell you that.[/quote']These may have been athiestic, but I would not have called them governed by science. (for example, china killed their intellectuals)

[McCoy]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

That is a danger' date=' but treating others like you would like to be treated is a quite logical way to live. One doesn't need a god to know that.[/quote']

 

That makes an unscientific assumption that others are just like you

Um, no, scientific consensus is that we are more alike than we are different.

[McCoy]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

There are differences in that assumption. A look at the history of atheist states like Vietnam' date=' the People's Republic of China, and the Soviet Union should tell you that.[/quote']

 

These may have been athiestic' date=' but I would not have called them governed by science. (for example, china killed their intellectuals)[/quote']

And the USSR, along with its client state the PRC and its client state Vietnam lost generations of biological progress because politics was more important than science, the political correctness of Lysenkoism was officially endorsed and Darwinism denounced as corrupt and anti-revolutionary.

 

Sort of like Androgenic Climate Change during the Bush administration.