Can space colonization unite the human race?

[Skroe]

I'm headed to bed, but my personal guess for the near future, for the little its worth, is that we'll see accelerated private sector growth with NASA spending most of its time on abstract research and operational coordination. Basically part Sagan-DARPA and part Astral FAA. I'm more or less fine with this. Far left winger I may be, but if private companies can reliably handle resource extraction and logistics with due regulation I'd prefer government focus on gains where profit motives aren't obvious.

China though, I doubt they'll be able to sustain a space program without serious social reforms. They're one bad economic crisis away from long term collapse.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't find the logistics to be particularly relevant to the point though. If the claim is that we need hegemony to ensure the long term propagation of liberal values we simply have no real way to tell who will carry that torch as far into the future as we're talking about.

I wouldn't say propagation. I think that's strong. To be clear, I'm not thinking that Mars has to have liberal values in order for the West and liberalism to survive. Nothing like that. Although I would say it will be better off if it is that. I mean look at the world 500 years ago where Spain had just fought back control of all its territory and England was a backwater. Colonization of the Americas created, directly, the Anglosphere and the Hispanophere, two of the largest and most significant on Earth.

I mean sure if the West doesn't colonize for itself, yeah it'll probably exist in some form just as Italy does today. But Italy has nothing comparable to the vast cultural, political and legal legacy of the British and the Spanish. I think we need to make an early decision, to hedge our bets (because who knows how it will turn out), to make Mars and beyond be reflective of our values. Even if they warp and change over time, it won't be because the foundation wasn't laid.

[--Code--]

Not a thing. Not a damn thing.

Our differences are profound. You know, I actually deeply resent this entire thesis. You know why? Because so far as we know, Human beings are the only intelligent life in the universe. That makes issues involving the human race not minor squabbles of a divided family, but concerns of cosmic importance. And our most important differences come under the topic of "how shall man live?". Our to put it another way, "how shall the only known intelligent life in the universe live"?

We can't paper over that. That's more important than holding hands and colonizing Mars. There must be and will be a definitive answer.

Unity for unity's sake is worthless. Unity on the other end of a process of getting to final resolution on the "cosmic questions" of the human race, is the only legitimate path forward. And I think that's way on the other end of planetary colonization, not a pre-requisite.

I guess I've watched too much Star Trek, time to go back to school. Oh wait... US education... anyways, that was my parting attempt at a joke, going to sleep now, gave me a lot to think about.

[Wells]

If we're not spreading liberalization and ensuring its lasting influence what part of "Western Values" are we hoping stays relevant? Rock music and clothing fashioned from flags? Liberalization is the only part of our culture that's worth trying to ensure dominance for as long as we can. Everything else is just window dressing.

[Skroe]

I guess I've watched too much Star Trek, time to go back to school. Oh wait... US education... anyways, that was my parting attempt at a joke, going to sleep now, gave me a lot to think about.

Yeah Star Trek has a dirty little secret. Utopia came at the other end of a nuclear holocaust that killed 600 million people, most of them in Asia. Star Trek represents not multiculturalism for all the Earth, but the final, bloody victory of Western Liberalism over everything else. And then Western Liberalism went on to form the core of a powerful interstellar state that has it's capital in Paris of all places.

Ever wonder why China is never mentioned in Star Trek? Why the major Earth cities are Paris, San Francisco, Kyoto, Geneva, Sao Paulo, and not Beijing and Moscow? Ever wonder why the Federation, which is based on Western democracy, has no Eastern influences? Why Federation crews are typically staffed by people who come from the US (every captain except Picard), Latin America, parts of Africa (Geordi Laforge) and Western Europe, and never continental East Asia, the Middle East and rarely Russia (Worf)? In the fiction... beyond it being an American show that is.

It's because most of the 600 Million People who died during World War III and the Eugenics Wars before it, were mostly in in the Asian mainland. Khan was Indian. Encounter at Farpoint's trial, it turns out from subsequent books, was based on places where Civilization devolved in Asia (and not in North America or Europe, since Paris survived and Zefram Cochrane's Montana didn't reflect that level of barbarism). Even the near-final draft of the First Contact script had the US's World War III Adversary be 'China' rather than 'ECON' as in the shooting script (ECON aka Eastern Coalition, in the books, being China+Russia+India+Pakistan+Kazakhstan+Iran and some states left over from Khan's Eugenics Wars empire). I turns out, ECON is actually the real world SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which was created years after First Contact) made serious.

United Earth in Star Trek Enterprise, that lead to the Federation, represents the triumph of Western civilization on the back of a genocide that killed a tenth the world's population and disproportionately effected the most highly populated regions in the world. The West and rich world mostly walked away alright.

It may seem like a Utopian future, but it was founded on some pretty dark grounds. Star Trek represents a future where, on Earth, the West basically wiped out the East using Nuclear Weapons, on the other side of the Eugenics Wars which killed millions before World War III. A Space-Exploring Utopia was built on top of a graveyard.

[Deleted]

Why would you think so?

To begin with, whoever is put in charge up there will be his over power hungry nation.

[Deleted]

Europe colonized much of the world and that didn't bring us together at all, quite the contrary actually, why would space be any different?

[--Code--]

Yeah Star Trek has a dirty little secret. Utopia came at the other end of a nuclear holocaust that killed 600 million people, most of them in Asia. Star Trek represents not multiculturalism for all the Earth, but the final, bloody victory of Western Liberalism over everything else. And then Western Liberalism went on to form the core of a powerful interstellar state that has it's capital in Paris of all places.

Ever wonder why China is never mentioned in Star Trek? Why the major Earth cities are Paris, San Francisco, Kyoto, Geneva, Sao Paulo, and not Beijing and Moscow? Ever wonder why the Federation, which is based on Western democracy, has no Eastern influences? Why Federation crews are typically staffed by people who come from the US (every captain except Picard), Latin America, parts of Africa (Geordi Laforge) and Western Europe, and never continental East Asia, the Middle East and rarely Russia (Worf)? In the fiction... beyond it being an American show that is.

It's because most of the 600 Million People who died during World War III and the Eugenics Wars before it, were mostly in in the Asian mainland. Khan was Indian. Encounter at Farpoint's trial, it turns out from subsequent books, was based on places where Civilization devolved in Asia (and not in North America or Europe, since Paris survived and Zefram Cochrane's Montana didn't reflect that level of barbarism). Even the near-final draft of the First Contact script had the US's World War III Adversary be 'China' rather than 'ECON' as in the shooting script (ECON aka Eastern Coalition, in the books, being China+Russia+India+Pakistan+Kazakhstan+Iran and some states left over from Khan's Eugenics Wars empire). I turns out, ECON is actually the real world SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which was created years after First Contact) made serious.

United Earth in Star Trek Enterprise, that lead to the Federation, represents the triumph of Western civilization on the back of a genocide that killed a tenth the world's population and disproportionately effected the most highly populated regions in the world. The West and rich world mostly walked away alright.

It may seem like a Utopian future, but it was founded on some pretty dark grounds. Star Trek represents a future where, on Earth, the West basically wiped out the East using Nuclear Weapons, on the other side of the Eugenics Wars which killed millions before World War III. A Space-Exploring Utopia was built on top of a graveyard.

aaaaaannnndd even a little more to think about, thank you.

[The Stormbringer]

I would like for humanity to try to set aside more violent conflicts to focus their goals on exploring and expanding into space, but I feel like any 'working together' business will be much more limited to the superpowers who have the resources to actually get there. This means the US and its close allies, the UK, Russia, China, and powerful corporations or other civilian groups that pool funds together. Competition and a desire to improve the human race is what needs to drive us, but I doubt we'll ever live to see that day.

[Deleted]

Yeah we need a big new bad, I mean the last content patch was 1.9.4.5 and the content drought is driving me insane. If we have a new threat then we can unite once more under the banner of friendship and comradery and form our almighty dragonslaying crews to charge into the domain of our enemy!

I think like others have said that people only unite out of self interest so there needs to be some kind of reason to do so. And with the media nowadays no country is gonna do much because the whole world will know what's happening unlike in WWI and WWII.

[procne]

As long as taking enemy's territory / riches will be easier than finding new territory / riches in space humanity will not be united.

[Aoyi]

I don't think it will ultimately unify us. Tribalism seems to be too deep in our ways. We could unite to make it a global effort to get thte first colonies set up, but then the colonies themselves would start to identify as their own "tribe". Deep down, our desire to be part of a group is too strong. I think they only way humanity as a whole will finally start to unify is when we encounter other sentient beings. That would provide the other we'd need for our tribalism to be willing to see humanity as a united group. Now that I've typed all that, I'm going to add that its just after 4am here and I very well might have been rambling. I'm on a lot of meds, so I may not be making any sense.

[Deleted]

Who knows what kind of society will we be living in at that time.
If we ever get there that is. Hopefully we won't listen to the warmongers.

[Wildtree]

No.. It won't.
But it might be a chance to filter out, and escape the idiots with a select tribe of people.

[Macaquerie]

I wouldn't say propagation. I think that's strong. To be clear, I'm not thinking that Mars has to have liberal values in order for the West and liberalism to survive. Nothing like that. Although I would say it will be better off if it is that. I mean look at the world 500 years ago where Spain had just fought back control of all its territory and England was a backwater. Colonization of the Americas created, directly, the Anglosphere and the Hispanophere, two of the largest and most significant on Earth.

I mean sure if the West doesn't colonize for itself, yeah it'll probably exist in some form just as Italy does today. But Italy has nothing comparable to the vast cultural, political and legal legacy of the British and the Spanish. I think we need to make an early decision, to hedge our bets (because who knows how it will turn out), to make Mars and beyond be reflective of our values. Even if they warp and change over time, it won't be because the foundation wasn't laid.

I feel like you are too obsessed with this idea of some kind of monolith from which modern secular and liberal values flowed and in the process, not actually giving your own country and its history nearly enough credit. The USA isn't just some European outpost in the New World and you certainly can't trace every aspect of our society back to the Magna Carta or something like that. Our development as a nation was far more organic than you're willing to admit, certainly we absorbed a lot of European influences but if that were the only relevant aspect we wouldn't have diverged nearly as far from modern Europe as we have in the intervening three centuries or so.

And so it will be with any future American space colonies. They certainly will be indistinguishable from terrestrial Americans at first, and they may of course maintain traditions and a founding narrative grounded in American culture. But over time they will absolutely develop in their own peculiar way, especially since the environment and context of that development will be so drastically different from anything humans have experienced in our collective history.

[Skroe]

I feel like you are too obsessed with this idea of some kind of monolith from which modern secular and liberal values flowed and in the process, not actually giving your own country and its history nearly enough credit. The USA isn't just some European outpost in the New World and you certainly can't trace every aspect of our society back to the Magna Carta or something like that. Our development as a nation was far more organic than you're willing to admit, certainly we absorbed a lot of European influences but if that were the only relevant aspect we wouldn't have diverged nearly as far from modern Europe as we have in the intervening three centuries or so.

And so it will be with any future American space colonies. They certainly will be indistinguishable from terrestrial Americans at first, and they may of course maintain traditions and a founding narrative grounded in American culture. But over time they will absolutely develop in their own peculiar way, especially since the environment and context of that development will be so drastically different from anything humans have experienced in our collective history.

Actually if you read the prior posts, what you're saying is _exactly_ what I'm saying.

It's just a foundation.

[Kuja]

United nations of earth? Utopia.

[Soulwind]

No.

If an ocean made the difference between Europe and America, imagine what space could do to each colony.

[Dezerte]

An extraterrestrial threat may do it, as long as it lasts that is.

[Rudkobing]

I don't think it will.

[David Sims]

Fuck no. Quite the opposite actually. We should make sure that Mars has a distinctly Western character. We should go with the ESA, and keep going with the ESA. Russi and China can play in Low Earth Orbit. Why do I believe this? Well for a few reasons. First and foremost look at the history of the Colonization of the Americas. The Spanish arrived first, but they rapidly focused on just central and south American. And here we are, over 500 years later, and their distinct culture formed the foundation on which all of Latin America was built (along with Portugal for Brazil). Same with North America. New England certainly has more of a Colonial "British" cultural identity than Loisisana, which maintained French traditions, and so forth. And this is hundreds of years later. The point is, whoever goes to Mars to STAY is likely to form the foundation of whatever society forms organically on mars over the centuries. I've long believed that Mars colonization will go slow. The first mission will be 6 astronauts on a round trip, then long duration (ten year missions lets call them) will begin that will see the populations well to the 20s, and then probably 50 by the end of the century. I'd say that by the end of the 22nd century there will be a few hundred people on Mars, and it will be the 23rd before we're talking a few thousand. Think about that for a moment. How long will it be before missions to Mars stop being just government employees and start being contractors? And what happens when people are vetted less stringently, crimes happen and people on 10 year missions start having sex and children? There is going to need to be a legal system, a civil society that takes shape on Mars or anywhere else. It is in the West's long term interests that that has a Western character. Not a Chinese one. Not a Russian one. Because chance are, that'll stick. We adopt some kind of globally-representative United Nations approach, that is mostly pointless by the way (Bangladesh has nothing to contribute to going to Mars, for example), and Mars will adopt that social character. We'll be stuck with it. Mars may be independent some day. It may be an American State. It may be a legacy project. Who knows. But let's not make the mistake of adopting early 21st century willy-nilly idealism for really no practical purpose onto something that will have permanent effects. So no, no sharing, and no unity. Space is for the West. Everyone else is stuck on Earth.

I agree with Skroe. The experiment of diversity has been done, and it has failed. The experiment of handing over to blacks a territory with a first-rate infrastructure, which whites had never had any trouble maintaining, has been done, and the blacks have failed. Haiti, Zimbabwe, and South Africa are all on exactly the same socio-economic trajectory, the only difference being the amount of time since each went ballistic on that trajectory.

Every historical time and place that can serve us as an experiment in whether blacks are competent enough to maintain their own society at an advanced level has proved that they cannot do any such thing at all. There is nothing scientific about pretending that we don't already have this information, that the decisive experiments have yet to be done. They have been done, to the extent that it is now up to the blacks themselves to prove that all previous experiments at including them with some reasonable chance for success is within the realm of possibility. In that regard, I expect a great deal of false information and fakery, but nothing that should fool us whites.

Unfortunately, too many white scientists, who are otherwise very clear-thinking fellows, seem to regard Star Trek's universe of make-believe negro competence and the fictional noble, gregarious negro has some ground in reality, when, in fact, it does not. Star Trek has always been multicultural propaganda, all the way from Lt. Uhura forward.