Discussion:
OT - No ‘colonizing’ or ‘frontiers’: Snowflakes alarmed by linguistic aspects
Add Reply
a425couple
2018-11-28 21:41:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/

No ‘colonizing’ or ‘frontiers’: Snowflakes alarmed by linguistic aspects
of NASA Mars probe
Published time: 28 Nov, 2018 12:43

No ‘colonizing’ or ‘frontiers’: Snowflakes alarmed by linguistic aspects
of NASA Mars probe
An artist's impression of Nasa's InSight lander about to touch down on
Mars. © NASA/JPL-Caltech

NASA has landed a research craft on Mars, and many are keen to see what
mysteries it will uncover. Some, however, focused instead on
linguistics, taking offence to words like “colonization” and “exploration.”
Many would think that things on the top of the ‘potential troubles with
visiting Mars’ list would include the loss of research data. Or perhaps
discovering (potentially aggressive and vexatious) alien life. But that
doesn’t seem to be even a blip on the radar for some, like American
astronomer Lucianne Walkowicz, who are more worried about what words are
used to describe space exploration. Walkowicz told Newsweek that words
like “colonization” are “not OK to use” as it “erases the history of
colonization here on our own planet.”

(Go to citation to view video)

Despite NASA having bigger fish to fry than the preferred snowflake
vernacular, it seems that Walkowicz isn’t the only one worried about the
‘damage’ certain words could have. “Language is one of the ways in which
we shape our social reality,” sociologist Zuleyka Zevallos from
Australia’s Swinburne University also told Newsweek.

via GIPHY

“The history of colonialism has taught us that there is no democratic
way to colonize other lands,” Zevallos added. “It is about profit, and
profit always marginalizes minorities.”

It is currently unclear what impact using the world ‘colonization’ will
have on Mars’ minorities.

So far, some have argued that the following words should be banned:
colonizing, settlement, frontier, and… exploring. If you can’t use the
word ‘exploring’ to explain how NASA is ‘searching a previously
unsearched new planet,’ then who even knows what terminology is
snowflake-safe.

via GIPHY

Like this story? Share it with a friend!


the comments include:

NASA wants to declare planet Mars as US property.

Snowflakes do not represent the silent majority. Simply ignore these
twits and carry on using proper English words.

When the English 'colonized' America; almost the whole Native population
was eliminated by the military.

May be these snowflakes would like to be 'colon-ized'.

How can they call it the "Red" planet. There is no Soviet Union
anymore. This is a slur against all Russian colonials. Oops.

Maybe the (native) Irish and Scots should be offended too as they often
have red hair.

It all depends on what kind of wogs live on the "Red" planet.

The kind that begin at Calais, no doubt.

OMG! WTF? Did you just profile the Irish and the Scottish? #mehtoo on you!

A great many Russians also have red hair. Maybe the Irish, Scots and
Russians are up to something.

Post of the day. :)

Are there redskins on the red planet?

It could be ultimately derived from Hebrew אדם ('adam) meaning "to be
red", referring to the ruddy colour of human skin, here on Earth.....

Wait - they want to ban computer animations?

No, only master race blitz colonizing of orcish countries ... taking
space, the final frontier and to explore strange new worlds. To seek out
new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!

......so all that made this society great......Spoken like a true white
person. Slavery and oppression are great?

Slavery brought orcs a language and technology, so yes. Oppression is
just a sign of your weakness, but we even let the weaks alive .... so
why exactly white persons should not rule the universe?

Because the universe is not theirs.

Go to Mars! Iidiot!

This is utterly getting absurd as time goes by wtf.

What part ?

those who are getting offended by those words. think if a war broke out
what are these sensitive people gonna do, they cant even handle words
let alone fighting in war zones and war time.

dont worry, if war breaks out they will be shot as traitors at first
peep, army doesnt mess around with idiots

Show 1 more replies
TermsPrivacy
Dimensional Traveler
2018-11-28 23:09:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
And this isn't even the stupidest story on that website.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2018-11-28 23:34:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:09:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
And this isn't even the stupidest story on that website.
RT stands for "Russia Today". Having seen it, if Trump were using it
as his primary source of information that would explain much.
Peter Trei
2018-11-29 00:45:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:09:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
And this isn't even the stupidest story on that website.
RT stands for "Russia Today". Having seen it, if Trump were using it
as his primary source of information that would explain much.
RT is definitely Putin’s station, a modern take on TASS. Stories on RT should be taken with the same caveats.

Pt
Robert Woodward
2018-11-29 05:45:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:09:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
And this isn't even the stupidest story on that website.
RT stands for "Russia Today". Having seen it, if Trump were using it
as his primary source of information that would explain much.
RT is definitely Putin’s station, a modern take on TASS. Stories on RT should
be taken with the same caveats.
"No news in News, no truth in Truth"
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Peter Trei
2018-11-29 15:21:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:09:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
And this isn't even the stupidest story on that website.
RT stands for "Russia Today". Having seen it, if Trump were using it
as his primary source of information that would explain much.
RT is definitely Putin’s station, a modern take on TASS. Stories on RT should
be taken with the same caveats.
"No news in News, no truth in Truth"
Hmm, I'd heard it differently.

There were two main Soviet newpapers*:
Pravda ("Truth")
Izvestia ("News" (literally "delivered messages"))

The form I heard was:

"There is no News in Truth, and no Truth in News"

* There was also the Moscow News, an English language paper you
saw in Soviet hotels.

pt
Robert Woodward
2018-11-30 05:36:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:09:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
And this isn't even the stupidest story on that website.
RT stands for "Russia Today". Having seen it, if Trump were using it
as his primary source of information that would explain much.
RT is definitely Putin’s station, a modern take on TASS. Stories on RT should
be taken with the same caveats.
"No news in News, no truth in Truth"
Hmm, I'd heard it differently.
Pravda ("Truth")
The Communist Party rag
Post by Peter Trei
Izvestia ("News" (literally "delivered messages"))
The Soviet Government publication
Post by Peter Trei
"There is no News in Truth, and no Truth in News"
Perhaps I remember it wrong (but I think my version is blacker and
Russian humor, at least several decades ago, tended to be black).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Scott Lurndal
2018-11-29 13:55:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:09:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
=20
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
And this isn't even the stupidest story on that website.
=20
RT stands for "Russia Today". Having seen it, if Trump were using it
as his primary source of information that would explain much.
RT is definitely Putin=E2=80=99s station, a modern take on TASS. Stories on=
RT should be taken with the same caveats.
I think R.T. more a modern take on Pravda ('truth').
Pt
Peter Trei
2018-11-29 15:21:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:09:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
=20
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
And this isn't even the stupidest story on that website.
=20
RT stands for "Russia Today". Having seen it, if Trump were using it
as his primary source of information that would explain much.
RT is definitely Putin=E2=80=99s station, a modern take on TASS. Stories on=
RT should be taken with the same caveats.
I think R.T. more a modern take on Pravda ('truth').
Pt
TASS was the Soviet News Agency
Pravda was a newpaper.

pt
Scott Lurndal
2018-11-29 15:50:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:09:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
=20
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
And this isn't even the stupidest story on that website.
=20
RT stands for "Russia Today". Having seen it, if Trump were using it
as his primary source of information that would explain much.
RT is definitely Putin=E2=80=99s station, a modern take on TASS. Stories on=
RT should be taken with the same caveats.
I think R.T. more a modern take on Pravda ('truth').
Pt
TASS was the Soviet News Agency
Pravda was a newpaper.
And RT is a digital newspaper, right?
Peter Trei
2018-11-29 16:05:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:09:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
=20
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
And this isn't even the stupidest story on that website.
=20
RT stands for "Russia Today". Having seen it, if Trump were using it
as his primary source of information that would explain much.
RT is definitely Putin=E2=80=99s station, a modern take on TASS. Stories on=
RT should be taken with the same caveats.
I think R.T. more a modern take on Pravda ('truth').
Pt
TASS was the Soviet News Agency
Pravda was a newpaper.
And RT is a digital newspaper, right?
You're right. I didn't realize TASS was still in existence, and
separate from RT.

pt
Quadibloc
2018-11-29 06:33:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
When I saw the previous, more supportive, article on this that you posted:

https://gizmodo.com/decolonizing-mars-are-we-thinking-about-space-explorat-1830348568

my attitude was basically that which this new article now expresses.

But I'm surprised that it's coming from Russia.

John Savard
Butch Malahide
2018-11-29 06:59:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.rt.com/news/445054-mars-snowflake-nasa-space/
No ‘colonizing’ or ‘frontiers’: Snowflakes alarmed by linguistic aspects
of NASA Mars probe
Published time: 28 Nov, 2018 12:43
No ‘colonizing’ or ‘frontiers’: Snowflakes alarmed by linguistic aspects
of NASA Mars probe
An artist's impression of Nasa's InSight lander about to touch down on
Mars. © NASA/JPL-Caltech
NASA has landed a research craft on Mars, and many are keen to see what
mysteries it will uncover. Some, however, focused instead on
linguistics, taking offence to words like “colonization” and “exploration.”
Many would think that things on the top of the ‘potential troubles with
visiting Mars’ list would include the loss of research data. Or perhaps
discovering (potentially aggressive and vexatious) alien life. But that
doesn’t seem to be even a blip on the radar for some, like American
astronomer Lucianne Walkowicz, who are more worried about what words are
used to describe space exploration. Walkowicz told Newsweek that words
like “colonization” are “not OK to use” as it “erases the history of
colonization here on our own planet.”
(Go to citation to view video)
Despite NASA having bigger fish to fry than the preferred snowflake
vernacular, it seems that Walkowicz isn’t the only one worried about the
‘damage’ certain words could have. “Language is one of the ways in which
we shape our social reality,” sociologist Zuleyka Zevallos from
Australia’s Swinburne University also told Newsweek.
via GIPHY
“The history of colonialism has taught us that there is no democratic
way to colonize other lands,” Zevallos added. “It is about profit, and
profit always marginalizes minorities.”
It is currently unclear what impact using the world ‘colonization’ will
have on Mars’ minorities.
colonizing, settlement, frontier, and… exploring. If you can’t use the
word ‘exploring’ to explain how NASA is ‘searching a previously
unsearched new planet,’ then who even knows what terminology is
snowflake-safe.
via GIPHY
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
NASA wants to declare planet Mars as US property.
Snowflakes do not represent the silent majority. Simply ignore these
twits and carry on using proper English words.
When the English 'colonized' America; almost the whole Native population
was eliminated by the military.
May be these snowflakes would like to be 'colon-ized'.
How can they call it the "Red" planet. There is no Soviet Union
anymore. This is a slur against all Russian colonials. Oops.
Maybe the (native) Irish and Scots should be offended too as they often
have red hair.
It all depends on what kind of wogs live on the "Red" planet.
The kind that begin at Calais, no doubt.
OMG! WTF? Did you just profile the Irish and the Scottish? #mehtoo on you!
A great many Russians also have red hair. Maybe the Irish, Scots and
Russians are up to something.
Post of the day. :)
Are there redskins on the red planet?
It could be ultimately derived from Hebrew אדם ('adam) meaning "to be
red", referring to the ruddy colour of human skin, here on Earth.....
Wait - they want to ban computer animations?
No, only master race blitz colonizing of orcish countries ... taking
space, the final frontier and to explore strange new worlds. To seek out
new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!
......so all that made this society great......Spoken like a true white
person. Slavery and oppression are great?
Slavery brought orcs a language and technology, so yes. Oppression is
just a sign of your weakness, but we even let the weaks alive .... so
why exactly white persons should not rule the universe?
Because the universe is not theirs.
Go to Mars! Iidiot!
This is utterly getting absurd as time goes by wtf.
What part ?
those who are getting offended by those words. think if a war broke out
what are these sensitive people gonna do, they cant even handle words
let alone fighting in war zones and war time.
dont worry, if war breaks out they will be shot as traitors at first
peep, army doesnt mess around with idiots
Show 1 more replies
TermsPrivacy
What about the rascals who colonized the Americas 15,000 or so years ago,
incidentally devastating the ecology and killing millions of animals? Are
we supposed to forgive them because of the sheer passage of time? Are for
that matter, what about those pesky Africans who colonized Europe and Asia?
Do they get off the hook?
Quadibloc
2018-11-30 06:34:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Butch Malahide
What about the rascals who colonized the Americas 15,000 or so years ago,
incidentally devastating the ecology and killing millions of animals? Are
we supposed to forgive them because of the sheer passage of time? Are for
that matter, what about those pesky Africans who colonized Europe and Asia?
Do they get off the hook?
There is nothing for them to get off the hook for. They didn't violate the rights
of any human beings by taking control of unoccupied land.

John Savard
Kevrob
2018-11-30 12:18:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Butch Malahide
What about the rascals who colonized the Americas 15,000 or so years ago,
incidentally devastating the ecology and killing millions of animals? Are
we supposed to forgive them because of the sheer passage of time? Are for
that matter, what about those pesky Africans who colonized Europe and Asia?
Do they get off the hook?
There is nothing for them to get off the hook for. They didn't violate the rights
of any human beings......
That we know of...

..... by taking control of unoccupied land.

Doctrine of "terra nullius."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius

In regards to space, the Outer Space Treaty would seem
to preclude states staking claims under that doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Establishing a non-military settlement on a planet would bring up
some interesting questions under the OST. Would property rights
under a legal system such as the US has be allowed? Would some
UN Space administration sit in judgment of any permanent or semi-
permanent installations? The UN being a mix of states with and
without space-faring capabilities, with some regimes having some
level of respect for human rights and governments more or less
responsible to their citizenry, and others not at all, I'm not
that comfortable with the dictator of Upper Wuhrizit having an
equal vote on these issues.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
J. Clarke
2018-11-30 14:57:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Butch Malahide
What about the rascals who colonized the Americas 15,000 or so years ago,
incidentally devastating the ecology and killing millions of animals? Are
we supposed to forgive them because of the sheer passage of time? Are for
that matter, what about those pesky Africans who colonized Europe and Asia?
Do they get off the hook?
There is nothing for them to get off the hook for. They didn't violate the rights
of any human beings......
That we know of...
..... by taking control of unoccupied land.
Doctrine of "terra nullius."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius
In regards to space, the Outer Space Treaty would seem
to preclude states staking claims under that doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
Establishing a non-military settlement on a planet would bring up
some interesting questions under the OST. Would property rights
under a legal system such as the US has be allowed? Would some
UN Space administration sit in judgment of any permanent or semi-
permanent installations? The UN being a mix of states with and
without space-faring capabilities, with some regimes having some
level of respect for human rights and governments more or less
responsible to their citizenry, and others not at all, I'm not
that comfortable with the dictator of Upper Wuhrizit having an
equal vote on these issues.
This is one where it's fine and good to have laws but they are
meaningless if they are unenforceable. If one nation has serious
spacefaring capability and the others do not then actually figuring
out whether a law is even being violated might be difficult. And if
that nation develops sufficient spacebound presence to constitute a
market greater than those that would impose economic sanctions that
threat is nullified. Is anybody who can't get to Mars going to go to
war over Mars?
Dimensional Traveler
2018-11-30 16:39:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
This is one where it's fine and good to have laws but they are
meaningless if they are unenforceable. If one nation has serious
spacefaring capability and the others do not then actually figuring
out whether a law is even being violated might be difficult. And if
that nation develops sufficient spacebound presence to constitute a
market greater than those that would impose economic sanctions that
threat is nullified. Is anybody who can't get to Mars going to go to
war over Mars?
If by doing so they think they can prevent someone else from getting
there, yes.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2018-11-30 19:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:39:34 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
This is one where it's fine and good to have laws but they are
meaningless if they are unenforceable. If one nation has serious
spacefaring capability and the others do not then actually figuring
out whether a law is even being violated might be difficult. And if
that nation develops sufficient spacebound presence to constitute a
market greater than those that would impose economic sanctions that
threat is nullified. Is anybody who can't get to Mars going to go to
war over Mars?
If by doing so they think they can prevent someone else from getting
there, yes.
Why do they care?
Dimensional Traveler
2018-11-30 20:44:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:39:34 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
This is one where it's fine and good to have laws but they are
meaningless if they are unenforceable. If one nation has serious
spacefaring capability and the others do not then actually figuring
out whether a law is even being violated might be difficult. And if
that nation develops sufficient spacebound presence to constitute a
market greater than those that would impose economic sanctions that
threat is nullified. Is anybody who can't get to Mars going to go to
war over Mars?
If by doing so they think they can prevent someone else from getting
there, yes.
Why do they care?
Keep them from getting the benefits of getting to Mars.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2018-12-01 00:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:44:40 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:39:34 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
This is one where it's fine and good to have laws but they are
meaningless if they are unenforceable. If one nation has serious
spacefaring capability and the others do not then actually figuring
out whether a law is even being violated might be difficult. And if
that nation develops sufficient spacebound presence to constitute a
market greater than those that would impose economic sanctions that
threat is nullified. Is anybody who can't get to Mars going to go to
war over Mars?
If by doing so they think they can prevent someone else from getting
there, yes.
Why do they care?
Keep them from getting the benefits of getting to Mars.
But they can't get to Mars. Meanwhile anyone who _can_ colonize Mars
can probably also drop asteroids on them.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-12-01 01:21:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:44:40 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:39:34 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
This is one where it's fine and good to have laws but they are
meaningless if they are unenforceable. If one nation has serious
spacefaring capability and the others do not then actually figuring
out whether a law is even being violated might be difficult. And if
that nation develops sufficient spacebound presence to constitute a
market greater than those that would impose economic sanctions that
threat is nullified. Is anybody who can't get to Mars going to go to
war over Mars?
If by doing so they think they can prevent someone else from getting
there, yes.
Why do they care?
Keep them from getting the benefits of getting to Mars.
But they can't get to Mars. Meanwhile anyone who _can_ colonize Mars
can probably also drop asteroids on them.
You appear to be assuming rationality on the part of the jealous party.
In the middle of the 20th century the USA could build more ships in
four years while gearing up towards full production than Japan could in
50 years. Didn't stop Japan from attacking the USA.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2018-12-01 02:36:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 17:21:36 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:44:40 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:39:34 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
This is one where it's fine and good to have laws but they are
meaningless if they are unenforceable. If one nation has serious
spacefaring capability and the others do not then actually figuring
out whether a law is even being violated might be difficult. And if
that nation develops sufficient spacebound presence to constitute a
market greater than those that would impose economic sanctions that
threat is nullified. Is anybody who can't get to Mars going to go to
war over Mars?
If by doing so they think they can prevent someone else from getting
there, yes.
Why do they care?
Keep them from getting the benefits of getting to Mars.
But they can't get to Mars. Meanwhile anyone who _can_ colonize Mars
can probably also drop asteroids on them.
You appear to be assuming rationality on the part of the jealous party.
In the middle of the 20th century the USA could build more ships in
four years while gearing up towards full production than Japan could in
50 years. Didn't stop Japan from attacking the USA.
However they didn't do it to keep the US from occupying Cuba. They
had their own close to home issues with which they percieved the US to
be interfering.

Kevrob
2018-11-30 16:58:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Is anybody who can't get to Mars going to go to
war over Mars?
They may go to war over a rake-off of whatever profit can
be made on Mars. This assumes that the Martian Settlements
are still connected enought to the countries and/or companies
who made the settlements possible have targets on Terra that
can be made subject to coerecion.

There's a lot of "foreign aid as protection racket" already
going on here on Old Earth. Most states who give it do it for
their own purposes, and military aid and treaties are often a
protection racket of their own.

Kevin R
Butch Malahide
2018-11-30 12:39:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Butch Malahide
What about the rascals who colonized the Americas 15,000 or so years ago,
incidentally devastating the ecology and killing millions of animals? Are
we supposed to forgive them because of the sheer passage of time? Are for
that matter, what about those pesky Africans who colonized Europe and Asia?
Do they get off the hook?
There is nothing for them to get off the hook for. They didn't violate the rights
of any human beings by taking control of unoccupied land.
Animals have no rights, then? Well, what about Neanderthals?
Didn't the Cro-Magnon conquerors come out of Africa and invade
the lands occupied by the Neanderthals?

An ObSF on the subject of animal rights: In "The Million Cities" by J. T. McIntosh, the Earth is severely overcrowded, but the Galactic Patrol
won't let us expand into space:

"You mean we're not allowed
to leave Earth?"

Jia smiled. "That's exactly it. It
works both ways. Every world belongs
to the creatures who evolve
on it. That goes for the moon,
where the only living things are
tiny, brainless creatures that live on
sunlight. It will be millions of years
before they develop what we'd call
intelligence — if they ever do. But
the moon's their world, and we're
not allowed to take it away from
them."

https://archive.org/details/Satellite_v02n06_1958-08_cape1736
Quadibloc
2018-11-30 17:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Butch Malahide
An ObSF on the subject of animal rights: In "The Million Cities" by J. T.
McIntosh, the Earth is severely overcrowded, but the Galactic Patrol
Fortunately, space is unlikely to be as useless as depicted either as in that
story, or as depicted in "The Disposessed" by Ursula K. LeGuin.

But launching population increase into space is, at least at our present stage
of technology, ludicrous. Even with plenty of worlds for the taking.

And although I think microbes don't have rights, because human beings have
rights, and because Martian microbes are more useful and valuable to human
beings as objects of study than any Martian colony would be, I still *do* oppose
setting up a Martian colony if it means trampling on Martian microbes. Just for
different reasons.

John Savard
Loading...