Discussion:
Territory in space OT
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2020-02-07 14:21:59 UTC
Permalink
How do you gain territory in space? In earth history, those who first populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land. But often, more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from natives.

There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.

Abhinav Lal

"Who benefits?"
Kevrob
2020-02-07 18:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
How do you gain territory in space? In earth history, those who first populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land. But often, more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from natives.
There is no natural right to ownership of land.
You sure about that?

[quote]

Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to
all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body
has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of
his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out
of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed
his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and
thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common
state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed
to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour
being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have
a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough,
and as good, left in common for others.

[/quote]

....


[quote]

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any
prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left,
and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was
never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For
he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take
nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of
another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the
same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water,
where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

[/quote] — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government,

CHAP. V. - Of Property

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm#CHAPTER_V

This is the principle behind what in the US we call "homesteading,"
if it is done according to law. If it is contrary to law, it's
"squatting," but even that may be regularized over time.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
Post by a***@gmail.com
It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps
a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest
given to private owners.
There's the problem of what public body gets to maintain
control over the "public land." An individual state? A
consortium of the space-faring nations? The UN? {I'll
wait for laughter to subside. ..................}

"Boots on the ground" is likely to trump "common heritage
of mankind," if history is any guide.

Kevin R
p***@gmail.com
2020-02-07 19:40:54 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:
[snips]
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
So we'll take the "public" half out of your land, yes?

If you intend to come take my land, you should pause and consider
how much I want to keep it.
a***@gmail.com
2020-02-08 01:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snips]
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
So we'll take the "public" half out of your land, yes?
I am discussing how to distribute land in other planets. It is too late for earth. If we control the population, there should be enough private land for everyone to have mansions.
Post by p***@gmail.com
If you intend to come take my land, you should pause and consider
how much I want to keep it.
Don't be afraid. No one is coming for your land.

I was just exploring some ideas on how to create a more equal society. Why should some people have a lot of land, and some people have no land?

Abhinav Lal

"Who benefits"
J. Clarke
2020-02-08 01:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snips]
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
So we'll take the "public" half out of your land, yes?
If you intend to come take my land, you should pause and consider
how much I want to keep it.
I'm pretty sure that if the government wants your land, it is not
going to care how much you want to keep it.
a***@gmail.com
2020-02-08 01:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snips]
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
So we'll take the "public" half out of your land, yes?
If you intend to come take my land, you should pause and consider
how much I want to keep it.
I'm pretty sure that if the government wants your land, it is not
going to care how much you want to keep it.
The government only cares for your rights, like property rights, when it is convenient. Hopefully, when we colonise other planets, we can establish meritocratic governments, where government leaders are chosen to serve temporary terms from the public, based on merit. And these governments should be transparent and accountable, and respect and enforce human rights.

Abhinav Lal

"I serve humans"
Johnny1A
2020-02-12 19:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snips]
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
So we'll take the "public" half out of your land, yes?
If you intend to come take my land, you should pause and consider
how much I want to keep it.
I'm pretty sure that if the government wants your land, it is not
going to care how much you want to keep it.
The government only cares for your rights, like property rights, when it is convenient. Hopefully, when we colonise other planets, we can establish meritocratic governments, where government leaders are chosen to serve temporary terms from the public, based on merit. And these governments should be transparent and accountable, and respect and enforce human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"I serve humans"
People are people, and human nature doesn't change, at least not on any time scale meaningful from an individual perspective.

When we go out to the planets, and eventually the stars, we'll reproduce all the good, and all the bad, that we've known on Earth, though of course the details will vary enormously. We'll have law-abiding states and lawless states and everything in between, and the same state will vary with time, too.

As for territory space, the underlying rule will still be: whoever gets there firstest with the mostest makes the underlying rules.
a***@gmail.com
2020-02-13 00:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snips]
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
So we'll take the "public" half out of your land, yes?
If you intend to come take my land, you should pause and consider
how much I want to keep it.
I'm pretty sure that if the government wants your land, it is not
going to care how much you want to keep it.
The government only cares for your rights, like property rights, when it is convenient. Hopefully, when we colonise other planets, we can establish meritocratic governments, where government leaders are chosen to serve temporary terms from the public, based on merit. And these governments should be transparent and accountable, and respect and enforce human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"I serve humans"
People are people, and human nature doesn't change, at least not on any time scale meaningful from an individual perspective.
When we go out to the planets, and eventually the stars, we'll reproduce all the good, and all the bad, that we've known on Earth, though of course the details will vary enormously. We'll have law-abiding states and lawless states and everything in between, and the same state will vary with time, too.
What about human progress? We are advancing culturally. Scientific advancement should be accompanied with moral advancement. With technology, government can be continually monitored, and incentivised to act more ethically.

Abhinav Lal

"Who benefits?"
Post by Johnny1A
As for territory space, the underlying rule will still be: whoever gets there firstest with the mostest makes the underlying rules.
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-13 04:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snips]
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
So we'll take the "public" half out of your land, yes?
If you intend to come take my land, you should pause and consider
how much I want to keep it.
I'm pretty sure that if the government wants your land, it is not
going to care how much you want to keep it.
The government only cares for your rights, like property rights, when it is convenient. Hopefully, when we colonise other planets, we can establish meritocratic governments, where government leaders are chosen to serve temporary terms from the public, based on merit. And these governments should be transparent and accountable, and respect and enforce human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"I serve humans"
People are people, and human nature doesn't change, at least not on any time scale meaningful from an individual perspective.
When we go out to the planets, and eventually the stars, we'll reproduce all the good, and all the bad, that we've known on Earth, though of course the details will vary enormously. We'll have law-abiding states and lawless states and everything in between, and the same state will vary with time, too.
What about human progress? We are advancing culturally. Scientific advancement should be accompanied with moral advancement. With technology, government can be continually monitored, and incentivised to act more ethically.
Abhinav Lal
"Who benefits?"
Post by Johnny1A
As for territory space, the underlying rule will still be: whoever gets there firstest with the mostest makes the underlying rules.
And then the Goths show up.

Lynn
Johnny1A
2020-02-13 05:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snips]
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
So we'll take the "public" half out of your land, yes?
If you intend to come take my land, you should pause and consider
how much I want to keep it.
I'm pretty sure that if the government wants your land, it is not
going to care how much you want to keep it.
The government only cares for your rights, like property rights, when it is convenient. Hopefully, when we colonise other planets, we can establish meritocratic governments, where government leaders are chosen to serve temporary terms from the public, based on merit. And these governments should be transparent and accountable, and respect and enforce human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"I serve humans"
People are people, and human nature doesn't change, at least not on any time scale meaningful from an individual perspective.
When we go out to the planets, and eventually the stars, we'll reproduce all the good, and all the bad, that we've known on Earth, though of course the details will vary enormously. We'll have law-abiding states and lawless states and everything in between, and the same state will vary with time, too.
What about human progress? We are advancing culturally. Scientific advancement should be accompanied with moral advancement. With technology, government can be continually monitored, and incentivised to act more ethically.
Abhinav Lal
By what standards? It's meaningless to even talk about 'advancing culturally' or 'moral advancement' unless you have a reference standard to measure against. If everything is relative, then everything is relative.

The Mongols who conquered half of Eurasia, burning cities and leaving piles of skulls, considered themselves morally superior for doing so. So did Atilla with regard to the decadent (by his standards) imperials he dealt with.

The Aztecs who engaged in mass human sacrifice saw this as a moral act.

Don't get me wrong, I'm _not_ a moral relativist, but it's _meaningless_ to talk about cultural advancement absent a standard.

It's still going to come down to who has the gun, in practice, when incompatible moral standards clash, or when a player just doesn't care about anything but self-interest.
a***@gmail.com
2020-02-14 03:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snips]
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
So we'll take the "public" half out of your land, yes?
If you intend to come take my land, you should pause and consider
how much I want to keep it.
I'm pretty sure that if the government wants your land, it is not
going to care how much you want to keep it.
The government only cares for your rights, like property rights, when it is convenient. Hopefully, when we colonise other planets, we can establish meritocratic governments, where government leaders are chosen to serve temporary terms from the public, based on merit. And these governments should be transparent and accountable, and respect and enforce human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"I serve humans"
People are people, and human nature doesn't change, at least not on any time scale meaningful from an individual perspective.
When we go out to the planets, and eventually the stars, we'll reproduce all the good, and all the bad, that we've known on Earth, though of course the details will vary enormously. We'll have law-abiding states and lawless states and everything in between, and the same state will vary with time, too.
What about human progress? We are advancing culturally. Scientific advancement should be accompanied with moral advancement. With technology, government can be continually monitored, and incentivised to act more ethically.
Abhinav Lal
By what standards? It's meaningless to even talk about 'advancing culturally' or 'moral advancement' unless you have a reference standard to measure against. If everything is relative, then everything is relative.
You can measure things and compare them across time. For example, the rate of human killings, whether due to murder or war. It has been declining as a percentage of population.

Respect of human rights. We can compare the rate of slavery and torture. I haven't looked at any research or data, but I hope they too have been declining.

Quality and quantity of life. Most humans have access to products and services, that even kings didn't hundreds of years ago. Lifespan and healthspan is also in a trend of increasing over the decades and centuries.
Post by Johnny1A
The Mongols who conquered half of Eurasia, burning cities and leaving piles of skulls, considered themselves morally superior for doing so. So did Atilla with regard to the decadent (by his standards) imperials he dealt with.
The Aztecs who engaged in mass human sacrifice saw this as a moral act.
Don't get me wrong, I'm _not_ a moral relativist, but it's _meaningless_ to talk about cultural advancement absent a standard.
It's still going to come down to who has the gun, in practice, when incompatible moral standards clash, or when a player just doesn't care about anything but self-interest.
There is "might makes right". That contrasts with rule of law. Domestically most developed nations at least try to give the impression that they are following the rule of law.

Abhinav Lal

"Who benefits"
Johnny1A
2020-02-18 05:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snips]
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
So we'll take the "public" half out of your land, yes?
If you intend to come take my land, you should pause and consider
how much I want to keep it.
I'm pretty sure that if the government wants your land, it is not
going to care how much you want to keep it.
The government only cares for your rights, like property rights, when it is convenient. Hopefully, when we colonise other planets, we can establish meritocratic governments, where government leaders are chosen to serve temporary terms from the public, based on merit. And these governments should be transparent and accountable, and respect and enforce human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"I serve humans"
People are people, and human nature doesn't change, at least not on any time scale meaningful from an individual perspective.
When we go out to the planets, and eventually the stars, we'll reproduce all the good, and all the bad, that we've known on Earth, though of course the details will vary enormously. We'll have law-abiding states and lawless states and everything in between, and the same state will vary with time, too.
What about human progress? We are advancing culturally. Scientific advancement should be accompanied with moral advancement. With technology, government can be continually monitored, and incentivised to act more ethically.
Abhinav Lal
By what standards? It's meaningless to even talk about 'advancing culturally' or 'moral advancement' unless you have a reference standard to measure against. If everything is relative, then everything is relative.
You can measure things and compare them across time. For example, the rate of human killings, whether due to murder or war. It has been declining as a percentage of population.
But that preassumes that killing people is bad. That has by no means been a universal human view throughout history, usually there are distinctions made between people it's forbidden to kill and people it's OK to kill and people it's good to kill.

That's what I mean by a standard. Most people simply apply the standard they picked up from their culture and assume it as a given without questioning it. When cultures with conflicting moral standards interact, the usual result is war.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Respect of human rights. We can compare the rate of slavery and torture. I haven't looked at any research or data, but I hope they too have been declining.
Quality and quantity of life. Most humans have access to products and services, that even kings didn't hundreds of years ago. Lifespan and healthspan is also in a trend of increasing over the decades and centuries.
Post by Johnny1A
The Mongols who conquered half of Eurasia, burning cities and leaving piles of skulls, considered themselves morally superior for doing so. So did Atilla with regard to the decadent (by his standards) imperials he dealt with.
The Aztecs who engaged in mass human sacrifice saw this as a moral act.
Don't get me wrong, I'm _not_ a moral relativist, but it's _meaningless_ to talk about cultural advancement absent a standard.
It's still going to come down to who has the gun, in practice, when incompatible moral standards clash, or when a player just doesn't care about anything but self-interest.
There is "might makes right".
Yes. That's been the default throughout history, and still is today when the chips are down.


That contrasts with rule of law. Domestically most developed nations at least try to give the impression that they are following the rule of law.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
"Who benefits"
But right now, the 'dissenting' cultures are weak enough that the standards of the dominant nations end up being 'the' standard, so trying to appear law-abiding is relatively easy. It's a thin veneer over the same old law of the jungle underneath.
a***@gmail.com
2020-02-19 00:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snips]
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
So we'll take the "public" half out of your land, yes?
If you intend to come take my land, you should pause and consider
how much I want to keep it.
I'm pretty sure that if the government wants your land, it is not
going to care how much you want to keep it.
The government only cares for your rights, like property rights, when it is convenient. Hopefully, when we colonise other planets, we can establish meritocratic governments, where government leaders are chosen to serve temporary terms from the public, based on merit. And these governments should be transparent and accountable, and respect and enforce human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"I serve humans"
People are people, and human nature doesn't change, at least not on any time scale meaningful from an individual perspective.
When we go out to the planets, and eventually the stars, we'll reproduce all the good, and all the bad, that we've known on Earth, though of course the details will vary enormously. We'll have law-abiding states and lawless states and everything in between, and the same state will vary with time, too.
What about human progress? We are advancing culturally. Scientific advancement should be accompanied with moral advancement. With technology, government can be continually monitored, and incentivised to act more ethically.
Abhinav Lal
By what standards? It's meaningless to even talk about 'advancing culturally' or 'moral advancement' unless you have a reference standard to measure against. If everything is relative, then everything is relative.
You can measure things and compare them across time. For example, the rate of human killings, whether due to murder or war. It has been declining as a percentage of population.
But that preassumes that killing people is bad. That has by no means been a universal human view throughout history, usually there are distinctions made between people it's forbidden to kill and people it's OK to kill and people it's good to kill.
I hope that most people would agree that killing innocent people is wrong. While it's alright to kill in defense: in defense of your property, your nation, your basic rights etc. And some might believe that it is alright to kill those guilty of murders.
Post by Johnny1A
That's what I mean by a standard. Most people simply apply the standard they picked up from their culture and assume it as a given without questioning it. When cultures with conflicting moral standards interact, the usual result is war.
There is a universal declaration of human rights drafted by the UN. But it is not law. Authoritarian states have different laws and moral standards. But most knowledgeable people would prefer to live in a state where their human rights are respected, unless they are the power abusing others human rights.

I believe humanity has made moral progress, and continues do so. Of course, the rich and powerful, have the most rights, but the rights of the ordinary people should improve, especially if government and businesses are required to become more transparent.


Abhinav Lal

"Fight for your rights"
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Respect of human rights. We can compare the rate of slavery and torture. I haven't looked at any research or data, but I hope they too have been declining.
Quality and quantity of life. Most humans have access to products and services, that even kings didn't hundreds of years ago. Lifespan and healthspan is also in a trend of increasing over the decades and centuries.
Post by Johnny1A
The Mongols who conquered half of Eurasia, burning cities and leaving piles of skulls, considered themselves morally superior for doing so. So did Atilla with regard to the decadent (by his standards) imperials he dealt with.
The Aztecs who engaged in mass human sacrifice saw this as a moral act.
Don't get me wrong, I'm _not_ a moral relativist, but it's _meaningless_ to talk about cultural advancement absent a standard.
It's still going to come down to who has the gun, in practice, when incompatible moral standards clash, or when a player just doesn't care about anything but self-interest.
There is "might makes right".
Yes. That's been the default throughout history, and still is today when the chips are down.
That contrasts with rule of law. Domestically most developed nations at least try to give the impression that they are following the rule of law.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
"Who benefits"
But right now, the 'dissenting' cultures are weak enough that the standards of the dominant nations end up being 'the' standard, so trying to appear law-abiding is relatively easy. It's a thin veneer over the same old law of the jungle underneath.
Paul S Person
2020-02-13 18:30:50 UTC
Permalink
<snipp-a-rooni>
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny1A
People are people, and human nature doesn't change, at least not on any time scale meaningful from an individual perspective.
When we go out to the planets, and eventually the stars, we'll reproduce all the good, and all the bad, that we've known on Earth, though of course the details will vary enormously. We'll have law-abiding states and lawless states and everything in between, and the same state will vary with time, too.
What about human progress? We are advancing culturally. Scientific advancement should be accompanied with moral advancement. With technology, government can be continually monitored, and incentivised to act more ethically.
Toynbee wrote a book (/The Future of Religions/, perhaps?) in which he
noted that the Modern Era ended in 1914.

The reason was that the essense of Modernism was, precisely, the
belief that "we are advancing culturally". And so they were, if
Victorianism can be considered advancement, until WWI started. This
belief hung on in some quarters until at least the mid-70s.

In the 1950s, Paul Tillich wrote an essay (or said in a lecture) that
ended up in a book that he was /appalled/ at how quickly Germany, "the
most cultured nation in the history of the world" had declined into
barbarism. Which is to say, of course, WWII.

In one of the books in my copy of the set called /The Great Books of
the Western World/, probably Freud of all people, I read the opinion
that people who stayed at home and listened to classical music on the
radio were "uncultured Philistines". Cultured people went to the
concert hall, the ballet hall, the theater, and so on -- and did so in
special clothing costing more than most people earned in a year.

The problem is that only the uppermost groups are "cultured". The vast
bulk of society, ignored and despised by the "cultured", had a lot
less far to fall to reach barbarism -- as they still do.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Johnny1A
2020-02-18 06:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
<snipp-a-rooni>
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny1A
People are people, and human nature doesn't change, at least not on any time scale meaningful from an individual perspective.
When we go out to the planets, and eventually the stars, we'll reproduce all the good, and all the bad, that we've known on Earth, though of course the details will vary enormously. We'll have law-abiding states and lawless states and everything in between, and the same state will vary with time, too.
What about human progress? We are advancing culturally. Scientific advancement should be accompanied with moral advancement. With technology, government can be continually monitored, and incentivised to act more ethically.
Toynbee wrote a book (/The Future of Religions/, perhaps?) in which he
noted that the Modern Era ended in 1914.
The reason was that the essense of Modernism was, precisely, the
belief that "we are advancing culturally". And so they were, if
Victorianism can be considered advancement,
It was mostly certainly advancement. Don't confuse the mostly nonsensical popular-culture image of the Victorian Era that's prevalent today with the actuality. In terms of the status of women and the poor, medical care, hygiene and quality of life, economic development, the spread of literacy and education, improvement in communications and travel, almost every front, in fact, the Victorians were the great success story of advancement in our age.

For one example, the temperance movement is usually remembered today as a failure, because of its overreach at the end of its run. But in the Victorian Era, public drunkenness and alcoholism were at society-threatening levels, esp. among the working classes and the urban poor. The temperance movement, as a social movement, was possibly the most successful such social movement in history, in terms of embedding improved norms in society. It's only remembered as a failure because of late-stage overreaches like Prohibition. (And even that not as total a failure as is sometimes misstated.)
Post by Paul S Person
until WWI started. This
belief hung on in some quarters until at least the mid-70s.
The problem is that only the uppermost groups are "cultured". The vast
bulk of society, ignored and despised by the "cultured", had a lot
less far to fall to reach barbarism -- as they still do.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Barbarism is never very far away, in any time or place. But the problem with civilization is that actual barbarians have their virtues, but when the moral code of civilization breaks down, not even the barbarian virtues are present.

The West's intellectual class though that the Enlightenment was pointing the way to moral advancement and that Reason could show the way to the good society and to solve social 'problems'. Which is _sometimes_ true!

But! Logic and Reason are morally neutral _tools_, and the World Wars (and for that matter the American Civil War, which presaged the horrors) were very much instances of logic and reason applied to warfare. Wipe out your enemy's food sources and his army will starve. Shatter his industrial machine and his military will grind to a halt. If it comes to that, wipe the enemy out entirely and you won't have any more problems from him. All eminently rational, reasoned propositions.

It turned out that the Enlightenment's power could be turned to evil or destructive purposes just as easily as good or constructive ones. Logic and Reason can't get you from _is_ to _ought_ on their own. That realization shattered the faith in the Age of Reason among the intellectuals. It was already cracking even before 1914, but 1914 and after crushed it under tank treads and gassed it.

In 1842, Tennyson wrote "Locksley Hall", which in some ways embodied the optimism of the Age of Reason. In 1886 he wrote a sequel, "Locksley Hall: Sixty Years After", though of course it was published 44 years later. In the sequel poem, the same viewpoint character more or less repudiates his youthful faith in Reason and Progress, pointing out the failings of the concept. The sentiments Tennyson expressed in 1886 presaged the attitudes of the intelligentsia in 1926.

Of course it's easy to mistake the preoccupations of the intellectual classes with the common view of their times, because they produce a disproportionate amount of the writings and histories. The street-level view was not necessarily the same.
p***@hotmail.com
2020-02-13 18:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
How do you gain territory in space? In earth history, those who first populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land. But often, more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from natives.
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
This was a plot point in Robert Heinlein's novella _The Man Who Sold the Moon_.
This was written long before any space treaties, and used existing legal
doctrine that ownership of land extended from the center of the Earth to
the ends of the universe. As part of his Moon operations D. B. Harriman
arranged to covertly gain rights to the Moon from every country on Earth
that the Moon passed over at any point of its orbit.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
David Johnston
2020-02-14 05:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
How do you gain territory in space? In earth history, those who first populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land. But often, more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from natives.
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
Here's the thing. Almost all of the territory in "space" is worthless
garbage.
m***@sky.com
2020-02-14 05:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by a***@gmail.com
How do you gain territory in space? In earth history, those who first populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land. But often, more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from natives.
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
Here's the thing. Almost all of the territory in "space" is worthless
garbage.
Just like the sea, and if we dive into https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15076/15076-h/15076-h.htm#Page_91 (Julian Corbett) we find e.g.

In the first place, "Command of the Sea" is not identical in its strategical conditions with the conquest of territory. You cannot argue from the one to the other, as has been too commonly done. Such phrases as the "Conquest of water territory" and "Making the enemy's coast our frontier" had their use and meaning in the mouths of those who framed them, but they are really little but rhetorical expressions founded on false analogy, and false analogy is not a secure basis for a theory of war.
(end quote)

and since I have quoted from the middle of a fully fledged book, there is a great deal both before and after.

As to the various proposed forms of shared ownerships, shared ownership so far has discouraged people from either improving or even maintaining the value of what is shared, and I see no reason to suspect that things will be different in future. I would expect a successful space colony to have complete control of its resources. The only question will be the motivation of the colonizers and their supporters in the parent country/planet. Will they be deterred or encouraged by the example of the American colonies? Will they simply decide that, while they are not great fans of creating a colony that will eventually achieve independence, they are even less keen on their competitors being the only ones to form colonies, whether those colonies later become independent or not?
David Johnston
2020-02-14 08:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by a***@gmail.com
How do you gain territory in space? In earth history, those who first populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land. But often, more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from natives.
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
Here's the thing. Almost all of the territory in "space" is worthless
garbage.
Just like the sea,
Well no. He was fairly clearly talking about the solid objects the
islands in the metaphorical sea. The reason why the space capable
nations aren't in a race to grab them because is because they aren't
worth grabbing. At most there might be a few mineable asteroids.
Johnny1A
2020-02-18 05:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by a***@gmail.com
How do you gain territory in space? In earth history, those who first populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land. But often, more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from natives.
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
Here's the thing. Almost all of the territory in "space" is worthless
garbage.
Just like the sea,
Well no. He was fairly clearly talking about the solid objects the
islands in the metaphorical sea. The reason why the space capable
nations aren't in a race to grab them because is because they aren't
worth grabbing. At most there might be a few mineable asteroids.
They aren't worth grabbing _with current technology_. With time, that equation is nearly certain to change.
J. Clarke
2020-02-14 10:17:47 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 22:01:34 -0700, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by a***@gmail.com
How do you gain territory in space? In earth history, those who first populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land. But often, more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from natives.
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
Here's the thing. Almost all of the territory in "space" is worthless
garbage.
In 1626 the Dutch purchased some "worthless garbage" for $24. It is
called "Manhattan".

It is only "worthless garbage" to those who do not understand that the
value of any urbation is value added to a wilderness.

Pick a random crater on the Moon. Give it ten million inhabitants. Is
it still "worthless garbage"?
David Johnston
2020-02-14 17:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 22:01:34 -0700, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by a***@gmail.com
How do you gain territory in space? In earth history, those who first populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land. But often, more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from natives.
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
Here's the thing. Almost all of the territory in "space" is worthless
garbage.
In 1626 the Dutch purchased some "worthless garbage" for $24. It is
called "Manhattan".
No they didn't. Manhattan was really nice. It had arable land, fish,
trees suitable for ship repair, and above all a good natural harbour.
It had a reason why the Dutch wanted to move in. And the reason they
could "buy" it so cheaply is because they were being scammed by people
who had no claim to it and didn't much like the people who did live there.
Post by J. Clarke
It is only "worthless garbage" to those who do not understand that the
value of any urbation is value added to a wilderness.
Pick a random crater on the Moon. Give it ten million inhabitants. Is
it still "worthless garbage"?
What you are asking is "If it was valuable, would it be "worthless"?"
Cities of ten million people don't just happen for no reason. There had
to be something to attract settlers there in the first place, and a
reason why travel flows through that particular gateway. Something that
makes it a gateway.
Kevrob
2020-02-14 20:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 22:01:34 -0700, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by a***@gmail.com
How do you gain territory in space? In earth history, those who first populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land. But often, more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from natives.
There is no natural right to ownership of land. It is an arbitrary convention that is practiced on earth. Perhaps a strategy where half the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
Here's the thing. Almost all of the territory in "space" is worthless
garbage.
In 1626 the Dutch purchased some "worthless garbage" for $24. It is
called "Manhattan".
No they didn't. Manhattan was really nice. It had arable land, fish,
trees suitable for ship repair, and above all a good natural harbour.
It had a reason why the Dutch wanted to move in. And the reason they
could "buy" it so cheaply is because they were being scammed by people
who had no claim to it and didn't much like the people who did live there.
Post by J. Clarke
It is only "worthless garbage" to those who do not understand that the
value of any urbation is value added to a wilderness.
Pick a random crater on the Moon. Give it ten million inhabitants. Is
it still "worthless garbage"?
What you are asking is "If it was valuable, would it be "worthless"?"
Cities of ten million people don't just happen for no reason. There had
to be something to attract settlers there in the first place, and a
reason why travel flows through that particular gateway. Something that
makes it a gateway.
Add the Hudson River to the fine harbor, and you had a "water
highway" for the fur trade. This was later extended westward
by the building of the Erie Canal, so that the states created
from the Northwest Territory could send their products via the
Great Lakes to New York, then on to the rest of the world.
This was hugely important before the railroads were built, and
after. None of the other Eastern Seaboard cities had as large
a "catchment area" for trade. New Orleans, as the port where
the Mississippi meets the Gulf of Mexico still serves this function.
Not much trade goes via canal through New York state any longer.
Great Lakes shipping can take the St Lawrence Seaway.

The Lenape/Delaware have not forgotten the "sale."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-native-new-yorkers-can-never-truly-reclaim-their-homeland-180970472/

Kevin R
Dimensional Traveler
2020-02-14 22:50:22 UTC
Permalink
How do you gain territory in space?  In earth history, those who first
populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land.  But often,
more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from
natives.
There is no natural right to ownership of land.  It is an arbitrary
convention that is practiced on earth.  Perhaps a strategy where half
the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
Here's the thing.  Almost all of the territory in "space" is worthless
garbage.
No, worthless garbage is something. Most of "Space" is as close to
absolutely nothing as you can get. :P
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
James Nicoll
2020-02-15 00:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
How do you gain territory in space?  In earth history, those who first
populated a land, took ontrol and ownership of the land.  But often,
more advanced civilizations used military force to steal the land from
natives.
There is no natural right to ownership of land.  It is an arbitrary
convention that is practiced on earth.  Perhaps a strategy where half
the planets land is public, and the rest given to private owners.
Here's the thing.  Almost all of the territory in "space" is worthless
garbage.
No, worthless garbage is something. Most of "Space" is as close to
absolutely nothing as you can get. :P
Nah, you're forgetting the cost to get there. It's got negative value
as far as commercial exploitation goes.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Loading...