Slashdot Mirror
Taking Issue With The Outer Space Treaty
tekan writes: "The National Review has an interesting article about the challenges ahead for the settlement of Mars (or the Moon), as well as how Law and sovereignty issues factor into colonizing these bodies." Perhaps most interesting are the reasons cited for entering into the treaty at all -- which had little to do with keeping space a peaceful utopia.
Why can't we just colonize these planets for the good of mankind AS all of mankind. Why do we need more invisible lines in space?
You know, somone once said that you can't see national boundries from space, maybe that's something to think about...
Linux is dead.
LU
Here is the real point of the article. The author is yet another anti-UN zealot, and his entire attack on the treaty mentioned is a thinly veiled attack on that body. Personally, I think an UN-headed colony on Mars or the Moon would be a great way to go.
I think many folks aren't looking at the big picture. Being divided as we are on our own planet is one thing, but if we run into another intelligent species out there, we aren't going to be Americans or Germans or Japanese---we're going to be Earthlings. We need to figure out how to act as such.
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
or
Let's Fuck the Poor in Space, Too!
You are not the customer.
What happens in space will be dictated by business interests and military strength, with little consideration for the environment and greater good, just like here on Earth. Why does anyone think anything different will happen?
Think about the interesting logistics that having political boarders in space would pose. You would need to define and defend boundaries in a 3D fashion unlike here on Earth where a two dimensional political map is sufficient. Defense would be tricky as well.
"It is widely agreed by space-law scholars that the Outer Space Treaty forbids only national sovereignty"
"space-law scholars"? -- Where can I go to get that degree? I'll put it next to my diplomas for "rocket sociologist" and "atomic dentist".
Best Windows Freeware
If we want to colonize space, and colonize it fast, the way to do that is to create viable land titles on the Moon, Mars, and any other body people want to live on. The value generated by making those title transferable at a distance ("the miracle of capital") will be more that sufficient to fund the trips to those places.
The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization
As to all those people who believe that "the world" should own space locations, and keep them as parks, or Utopias - that will be the easiest way to ensure that they remain completely unused by humanity, until it's *super* easy, whereupon those places will become slums and shanty towns, just like the unpropertied areas in third world countries today.
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon
augment your senses: http://sensebridge.net/
Let say America withdraws from the Outer Space Treaty. In 20 years, 95% of mars is controlled by America. The only way that this can be seen as good is if you are looking at it with the view that america is superior to every other nation there is. We may be richer, but it is a far cry to call us superior. Then lets look at another provision of the treaty, no Weapons of Mass destruction in outer space. Under Bush's National Missile defense system, he never ruled out using a space based system, including some sort of laser platforms. So then we have weapons of mass destruction in outer space. Wonderful.
It doesn't matter why or for what reasons the treaty was accepted by AMERICANS. What matters is what it does. The outer space treaty is basis for the outer space policy of the United Nations, and therefore of the 189 member states of the United Nations. But obviosly we know better than all of them.
As far as I'm concerned, Bush has a horrible record as far as treaties go (KYOTO anyone?), and I would not trust him to withdraw from the outer space treaty and then be responsible.
Sig!
Whether they ever find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be considered an enemy planet.
-Jack Handey
For those unfamiliar, the Moon orbits the Earth. Mars, like Earth, Orbits the Sun.
I don't see why there needs to be a treaty, I don't see no Millenium Falcon out there causing havoc, yet...
It's interesting to think about how future colonists will view Earth, especially the first generation of humans not born on the home planet.
My guess is that many of the same tensions that pushed the 13 Colonies against England in 1776, as well as countless similar political situations before and since will come to bear again. The issue of sovereignty over space will be more or less moot to Earthbound nations. They will go into space, eventually find something they like, gain self-sufficiency, and eventually lose interest in restrictive relationships with Earth.
My first official act will be to declare war upon the Earthlings. You have been warned..now back to building my landing craft and death ray.
According to the maps, radars, etc I see on television, you can in fact see those boundaries! It's quite amazing. I assume some large group of people went around drawing them everywhere. Heck, they even did individual states! It's simply incredible work.
Lawyer Claims To "Own" The Sun
like water - photons aren't free
by Virgiliu Pop
Los Angeles - May 06, 2002
They used to say - "only the Sun rises for free". Not anymore: in a move intended to expose the phony "extraterrestrial real estate" industry, a space lawyer "claimed" ownership of the Sun. "While it has become increasingly popular to 'buy' properties on the Moon and other planets, the claims of Mr. Dennis Hope of the Lunar Embassy and of other extraterrestrial real estate 'owners' and 'sellers' are ridiculous and without legal foundations" - declared Virgiliu Pop, a PhD Candidate at Glasgow University specialising in extraterrestrial property rights. "If they believe they can own a celestial body just because it has not been claimed before, and then sell it to the public, so can I say I own the Sun and charge the 'extraterrestrial owners' for solar energy".
Mr. Hope's "Lunar Embassy" is the leader in the extraterrestrial real estate business, having "sold" extraterrestrial parcels to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide - but these claims are as valid as Monopoly money. "It is indeed a celestial Monopoly game" - says Mr. Pop, whose scientific papers on extraterrestrial property rights were published in the "Space Policy" journal - "and now, I 'own' the 'electrical company' on the game board".
Mr. Pop registered his claim over the Sun on April 28th, 2001, with the Archimedes Institute Claim Registration Office, registry that has been used also by Mr. Gregory Nemitz in registering his claim over asteroid Eros. "In February 2001, Mr. Nemitz sent NASA an invoice for the parking/storage fee for the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft, that landed on 'his' property. I can use this example and start charging Mr. Hope and the other extraterrestrial property 'owners' for the use of the sunlight - now that I 'own' the Sun. "The main question is not the legality of owning real estate in outer space" - says Virgiliu Pop; "in the case of Mr. Hope one should primarily questions the means for gaining ownership. I do deal in my thesis with the question whether one may own real estate on the moon; what I question is whether the Moon belongs to Mr. Hope".
Ownership involves not only rights, but also responsibilities; however, Mr. Pop declared himself not liable for any damage caused by "his" property in the form of skin cancer, sunstroke, solar flares, etc.
"People should wear protective sun screen, sun glasses, sun hat and drink plenty of water in order to avoid these inconveniences - but, if somebody were to sue me for damage provoked by the Sun, I do not think any court would be that unwise to consider their claims. By recognizing that I am responsible for the damage from the Sun, the court would implicitly recognize that I do indeed own the Sun - which is ridiculous".
In his claim over the Moon, Mr. Hope sees the silence from the authorities - such as the United Nations - as maintaining his extraterrestrial claims. What do the United Nations think of Mr. Pop's claim over the Sun?
Last year, while at a space congress, Mr. Pop had a laugh with one of the officials from the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, that jokingly introduced him to another official as "The Man who Owns the Sun".
"Should I consider this as recognition from the UN of my property over the Sun"? - asks Mr. Pop? "I don't think so - as I don't think that the silence of the UN regarding Mr. Hope's claims over the Moon is to be interpreted as acquiescence". "The United Nations are dealing with too important problems for them to bother with such trivial claims. They do not send formal protests to any individual claiming to own a celestial body, as France does not send "cease and desist" letters to any individual claiming to be Napoleon".
"I want to assure the public that I do not actually believe I own the Sun" - said Mr. Pop. "My concept of ownership over the Sun is relative. I mean, I own it as much or as little as Mr. Hope owns the Moon. If he owns the Moon, so do I own the Sun. If he does not own the Moon, neither do I own the Sun. If the public believes that they can buy moon plots from Mr. Hope and his subsidiaries - then they should regard me as the owner of the Sun. I, for one, intended this move only to show how ridiculous a property rights system in outer space would be if it were to be based solely on claim unsubstantiated by any actual possession. I made this claim precisely in order to be denied!"
Would Mr. Pop change his mind and start charging earthlings for the use of his rays? "Unlikely" - he says - "as there are no means for me enforcing my claims". "Unfortunately, the only sun-blocking instrument in existence is owned by Mr. Burns, Homer Simpson's boss - and it is unlikely I can get it from him."
I am hereby notifying everyone that I am patenting colonization on the moon and mars. i believe there has been no prior art.
which had little to do with keeping space a peaceful utopia. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who would be disapointed to see that happen. Sadly, there are a lot of folks in power who would be upset to see a utopia because that limits their opprotunity to exploit other people. I hope someday we can learn to better distinguish who is on which side of that line and keep those more interested in their own good than that of many out of power. Seems we're on the opposite end of that one right now.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
Are you a not native speaker of the Englander's language, are you?
No one will be able to enforce any law as I
understand he can gety up and go where no
man has ever been before !! It will be centuries
before NASA and others can go to Mars !
Space Propulsion Engine for Flying Saucer - New Physics
Rumor in Silicon Valley -
Inventor of 3D volume holographic optical storage
shopping his concept for Space Propulsion Engine
using Propellantless Mass to US and other countries.
for further look at biography background goto
http://colossalstorage.net
he is working in top secret and he says no physicist or scientist
he has ever studied or researched had this approach and knows his
concept will work to give near light speed travel thru Galaxy with
500K/Miles per Hour to start or 138 miles/sec. Nasa fastest time
are 25,000 mile/hr or 3.9 miles/sec
he says it is a mankind first concept !!
I just finished reading this book Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson, and it touched on outer space treaties, what happens when various nations colonize mars, finding water on mars etc... it's one of the best "mars colonization" books out there.
So, here's the $64,000 question: If we do or if we don't make a treaty for territory off-world, in space, Mars, the Moon, etc.. Who will enforce said arrangements and agreements? How will you verify claims that someone has broken the treaty? Governing the peace in space isn't something I think should be left up to the UN.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Shouldn't the current citizens of Mars have some say in this matter?
Yeah, I know. Call me a liberal.
Conclusion: You're a dumbass.
Evidence: Your post.
Dumbass Factor: 0.93
...American tax money that could have produced amazing feats of exploration was instead delivered foreign dictators who...
Give me a break! Surely, this money was occasionally misused, but considering how much much space exploration costs, we could as well feed some poor people, first.
And then he goes onto property, owning a land on Mars; that is simply sickening, do we really have to carry on capitalism in space? There is so much fucking space there we really should find a better solution.
I would expect the US, China, Europe, Japan, India, and maybe others to each have their own "colonies" on Mars, for a while. But then cultural trends would start pushing these colonies to band together, and eventually declare independence from any and all Earth nations. They'd have much more in common with each other than each colony would have with its mother nation, after all (2/5 gravity, food scarcity, etc.).
Then there's the communications gap. Absolute minimum of, I forget, 20 minutes round trip to get a response from Earth? Going up to 40 minutes? Not a huuuge gap, but it's there.
The main thing tying Martian colonies to Earth would be dependence on resources and infrastructure - heavy machinery, for instance - until the means exists to produce it locally. But that would just be a matter of time.
In short, humans, by nature, will band together where convenient, and declare independence when convenient as well.
Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
Quote: "President Kennedy pointed America to the New Frontier. That frontier has advanced to Mars. It is time for President Bush to ensure that humanity's new frontier will enjoy constitutional freedom rather than U.N. despotism."
Am I the only one thinking constitutional freedom isn't as big thing as international agreements on Freedom and Rights in Space? Not even mentioning how many freedoms americans have already lost...Well, World Cop U.S might soon be The Cop of The Universe [tm].
The world doesn't need you.
From what I learned, there is a large body of national and international law about space that rests on this treaty and a few others (space liability, rescue and return, etc.) and throwing this one out is unlikely. But, these treaties do have a fundamental problem in not providing any mechanism for private property rights in space, nor particularly envisioning any sort of settlement process. There are a large number of ideas for how to fix this - Alan Wasser's proposals mentioned in the article are one of them. There's also Declan O'Donnell's United Societies in Space that advocates extending common law rules to outer space, and of course there's the Lunar Embassy that's taking advantage of the current ambiguities to sell property on the Moon and other bodies.
What's needed is a push from the US State Department to get these things resolved - there are apparently individuals there who would know what to do to get a new treaty worked out or current treaties amended, but there's been absolutely no support from higher up for it. Write your congressmen or directly to the State Dept. to express your views if you feel a legal property regime for outer space is important!
Energy: time to change the picture.
"The next step will be for the colonists on Mars to throw off the hand of the United States. There will be this wonderful historical irony. When the people on Mars write a declaration of independence saying, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident...', the US will be rather pissed off" - Eric Idle
I believe that the existence of women is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy
Why do you accept the notion of soverignty?
What good is it?
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
The gist of the article is, simply, that since our promise is no longer in our interest, we should renounce it. Truly, there nothing new under the sun (see our gov'ts long history of abrogating treaties with various indigenous Nations).
More explicitly, the thinking seems to be that now that there's no danger of the Rooskies forcing us to spend terabucks in a race to establish sovereignty over the moon and planets, we should go ahead and lay claim to them. After all, who's gonna challenge our claim? The Russians are broke and the Chinese space program is still embryonic.
This is the logic of hegemony, nothing more.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Just screw whoever's there out of their land and rights, and move 'em somewhere else. Then, 100 years later, we can admit we were wrong, give them back 1/100th of what we stole, keep all the prosperity, and feel good about living there! For those who can't tell, I'm a white man in america!
I think I understand that the treaty forbids State ownership of property on other bodies in the solar system, but that personal property would be allowed.
So what do we get? Colinization by those who can afford to get themselves to the New World, and can fight off attackers of their claims, and can survive the harsh and unpredictable nature of the local climate.
Is it me, or is this just another form of the whole Europe to Americas move a few centuries ago, then the whole "go west young man" a little later?
The upside is that because of clause #2 in that treaty, we can skip the whole Revolutionary war theme this time.
I see no problem with the treaty, or the restrictions. But given Bush's repeated demostration that he sees no reason to follow International or even U.S. law when he doesn't feel like it, clause 2 will probably become moot.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
I wonder if we all taste the same (taste like chicken maybe).
That may differenciate us.
I mean come on all Americans smell like Milk and Hamburgers. All Asians smell like asain food. All Europeans smell like shit (so they'll be okay), whoops I meant cigarettes and alcohol.
So they signed the treaty to raid the coffers of NASA and put that money to an Eartly use.
Now that we have signed it we have given up our "birthright"? Are we talking Manifest Destiny here?
Who said the USA has a right to be the sole colonizers the moon? I take comfort in the fact that we can't and other nations can't either.
While this long standing treaty may throw a wrench in the works of China's plans it will still keep the moon open to anyone who wants to visit, explore or settle. (that is if China wanted to Nationalize it's effort which isn't the case)
Space isn't for one group or another. Hell, I don't think the Earth is either but I'm usually alone in this thought.
What bothers me is below.
The Bush administration has shown that it is willing to reject politically correct international agreements which harm America's interests -- such as the recently repudiated agreement creating an International Criminal Court, and the ABM treaty. Given the Bush administration's commendable interest in favoring American interests over the opinions of the post-national bureaucrats and chattering classes, the Bush administration should revisit Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.
Commendable? What about everyone's interests? Now this is an issue of right vs. left. Many think the ABM treaty is a Good Thing, and I personally think the International Criminal Court is something that scares U.S. politicians because they create more international crime more than anyone else. The ABM treaty is more of, ICBM's vs. " The Shield".
So really this article is a front for reasons we should basically "take over" space? Not us as people but as a nation. Why is it a Good Thing to open the flood gates? You think wars are bad now, just wait.
I mean, many people think this planet is just becoming insane (like this post) but if you can't escape it then sheesh, why bother exploring space.
In Article 16, the Treaty specifically provides for states to withdraw from the treaty, by providing one-year advance notice. At the same time, the United States could announce that it would continue to adhere to the provisions of the treaty that still make sense, such as Article 4's prohibition of nuclear weapons in space.
Once again... we can just take from it what we want? Sounds like a treaty we signed with Native Americans to me.
It is time for President Bush to ensure that humanity's new frontier will enjoy constitutional freedom rather than U.N. despotism.
Oh, and it's on the table for everyone to see. The author of this article assumes that you want that "Constitutional Freedom". What if you don't? Let's look at John Walker Lindh. A boy who appeared to have his mind set on leaving the USA and going after the fundamentalist life he wanted. But even though he went half way around the world he was still trapped under U.S. law.
What do you have to do? Walter Williams wrote that every law on the books is a attack on our freedoms. In his last article it ends; "Governments are not only the enemy of personal libery but of economic prosperity as well". How true.
Maybe they just want to insure you can't defect to Mars and not pay that precious tax. What if I want to smoke pot on Mars? The list can go on for years...
Pax Americanus I say...
Get your Unix fortune now!
This journalist is writing bool-sheet aiming to grab attention with his nut-case theories. He says US should settle Mars because it has a lot of water ice and becuase the first trip to Mars would cost just $50 billion, not $500 billion as previously estimated. By that argument Antarctics is a lot better to settle. The trip there would cost literally several million times cheaper, it also has a lot of water ice, and the climat is a a great deal warmer too :-). No nation has sovereignity over Antarctics, why not advise to claim it? I know why. Because it would be immediately obvious that the idea is stupid. Writing about Mars is fashionable, the stupidity is not as aparent.
Let me guess... you're French.
Don't worry son, we'll still be around to bail you out AGAIN next time a war rolls around.
Even though the concept comes from an anime (Cowboy Bebop) I think having the solar system organized as a country and the different colonies, planets, asteroids, etc... set as individual states (with their own local laws, all enforced via the Inter Solar System Police, a division of some sort of interplanetary government) would fit things much better than trying to tie Earth-bound territories to remote locations like Mars.
Do we on Earth want to fight wars on our own planet regarding the division of land on Mars? Or worse yet, the future pioneers and frontiersmen might not enjoy being controlled by powers at such a great distance and revolt (heh, sound familliar?).
I dunno, it just seems to me that we humans are going to make all the same dumb mistakes we made here on Earth since 1492.
crazy dynamite monkey
Is this whole discussion leading up to a promo for Westwood Studios new "Earth and Beyond" game?
The author suggests getting out of this treaty, which is allowed with one year's notice. Whether or not one thinks ditching this treaty is a good idea, there's no reason to do it any time soon.
His most compelling reasons to abrogate the treaty are to put the colonists of New California on Mars under the protection of the US Constitution, and allow them to become the 51st state of the Union.
Now, I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps he's getting a little ahead of himself here. Wouldn't it be a bit more sensible to wait until there ARE some American colonists on Mars, first? The time to get free of the treaty is less than the current transit time to Mars, for goodness sake. Surely there's no need to hurry...
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I was with the author of the National Review article, right up to the
point where he started bashing the UN. He retreats into the tired old
right-wing attacks without really backing up anything he's saying.
Why wouldn't an arrangement based upon international cooperation work?
Why does he reject it out of hand? Why can't we use Antarctica as a
model for off-world activity? I mean, have we ever had any problems
down there?
Where is timothy from that he expects international treaties to even consider working towards a "peaceful utopia?" AFAIK, that has never been any nation's goal.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
The article argues that the United States was swindled into entering the treaty because a few state department bureacrats wanted to grab money from NASA. That misses the point entirely. The propents of the treaty were not concerned with inter-department budget bickering. Rather, they saw that without a treaty prohibiting the extension of soveirenty into space, there might have been a huge space race between the superpowers to plant their flags on every space rock within reach. The enormous potential cost of such a space race is the money that was "grabbed."
...let's screw everything, antagonize everybody and unilaterally proclaim US sovereignity on a bunch of planets? What about proclaiming it on something where Americans ever stepped on? Or how about proclaiming it on unexplored areas of the planets? There is an american piece of junk on Mars => let's claim the whole Mars as an US territory! And why end with planets, US can claim that it owns the sun, Asteroid belt, all the space within Solar system (except one that is filled by other countries on Earth)? Or just claim the whole galaxy?
The point is, no one gives a shit who and why signed a treaty, it was and still is a right thing to do, and if US government will try to bite everything in its reach, they may find not only that they won't be able to chew it but that everyone else will be happy to help them to choke.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Hey. America runs the show because we're the biggest badasses on the planet. A hudred years ago, the English ran the show, because they were the biggest planetary badasses. Germany gave it a couple of shots and we put the smackdown on 'em. Prior to the english were the Spaniards, back to the Romans for what--1200 years?--and Alexander the Great before them.
I think the Chinese get their turn next.
The worst part of it is the arrogance, I know. Like we run the show, and this is proof that God Himself intended it. But guess what? All glory is fleeting.
All this talk about the Moon and Mars -- whoever gets there first is going to make the rules, treaty or no treaty. Eventually, when they can make it without a monthly shipment of beans from Earth, the Lunans or Martians will get sick of our crap and strike out on their own.
Not in any of our lifetimes, though.
Who are you to define what "for the good of mankind AS all of mankind" is?
You speak much as Hitler did....
The US is a signatory to treaties which prohibit the use of nuclear devices outside the atmosphere. While originally intended to prevent further nuclear bomb testing in orbit (which would have disastrous effects on todays world), it has also limited legit research into technologies like NERVA.
NERVA rockets (which use a reactor to superheat hydrogen for propulsion, at much higher efficiency levels than chemical rockets) are the key to exploration and exploitation of the Solar System. Our chemical rockets have hit peaks of efficiency limited by the physics of combustion that are not surmountable, and they fall far short of the ISP (a measure of efficiency and power) needed for manned exploration of our neighborhood.
The US should either formally leave these treaties or push for amendements to exclude limits on peaceful use of nuclear propulsion.
This thread is right. I, unfortunately, am an American, and the last thing I want to see (knowing the sadism and evil of most Americans) is what the article's author suggests: spatial areas or other planetary bodies being ruled by America. It won't benefit ordinary Americans, whether good or bad; it will benefit corporate CEOs, period.
You are indeed a coward. You wont give a name, nor will you give the country that we Hellish, awful Americans have so aggrieved. Tell me Anonymous, what is it that we Yanks have done to garner so much ill will, hmm? Is it that we're the "leader of the free world"? Can someone else do a better job? There HAS to be one. Nature abhors a vacuum. SOME country was going to step up and lead. We are by no means always perfect or right in what we do, but I refuse to apologize for my country anymore. And I'm damn tired of little trolls like yourself that bitch and howl in rage at us, and for what? What truly democratic country have we ever picked a fight with? Do we exert influence across the world? Of course we do. Only a nation of fools would not. What world power has ever refused to use it's influence, and remained a world power? As I said, there has to be someone. You should fall on your knees and thank whatever god you answer to that it was the United States, and not the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. We ARE the freeest nation in the world, and want to influence other nations to be as well. Don't like it? By all means, protest and suggest something different then. Until you have a better solution, and can find the modicum of courage to offer it publicly, zip it "You Fucking Coward"
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I guess what I see is that this piece of paper doesn't really mean much in the long-term...whether it's there or not isn't really relevant...the two cases could work out like: a) earthly nations appropriate portions of planetary /lunar surfaces and attempt to control them, a la the europeans trying to control the americas at one point in time...eventually, the great distance from earth to these places will mean that self-governance is a much more efficient means of governance, and the people will see that and put it into action.
b) said outer space treaty is scrapped, and these bodies naturally build themselves into a form of governance (perhaps without conflict)...
I don't know, but I am very interested to know what the future has in store for mars....
Do you think that if humans go out into space there will suddenly become more noble creatures? They will be the same humans that we have here on earth, and act the same way. You must be a fan of Star Trek, where it appears that they have found a way to rip testosterone from males and whatever makes women so bitchy and catty. If I had to pick any thing that would be a good representation, it would be something like Babylon 5, where politics and greed are readly apparent.
The article writer's support and endorsement of the most evil man on the planet, Bush, is an indication of his own evil.
You're such an angry person. :-)
Maybe you need a HUG
{{{ YOU }}}
It won't benefit ordinary Americans, whether good or bad; it will benefit corporate CEOs, period.
Sure, corporatism NEVER benefits ordinary Americans. That's why Americans have a worse living standard than, say, North Korea.
Really, i think i agree with the last sentence i think people off planet would probably band together and focus on their own "martian" or off planet issues and govern them selves indepedantly. This type of retoric is sumwhat outlined in mobile suit gundam (1979)
will
drift hard
At least according to "Harry Covert":
File #2: A Martian Chronicle
This guy ties together two interesting ideas: the fact that humans appear to have evolved through an "aquatic ape" stage, and the particular gravitational conditions of Mars.
We should also note the recently discovered vast amounts of water on Mars.
All your Mars base are belong to us.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Do you ever shut up? Can't you just stop voicing you alleged opinions in a manner others are capable of percieving? You have nothing to say.
I mean, if you were posessed interesting opinions or manner of expression, that would be one thing (possible two); but you aren't. Please, quit exploiting us and shut the fuck up.
Thanks.
PS. You still know nothing about missle defense.
full of shit. A summary read of his article shows the main point to be a further continuation of US ultra-right-wing isolationist hysteria. Describing the United Nations as a "collection of dictatorships" should be a first clue.
He fails to show any _good_ reason to dump the treaty - other than "it was pushed by the state department to further their own interests" (such as helping smooth relationships between US and USSR), and "UN==the Devil!!!!!!!" (ho-hum, again) So this, er, moron, would rather toss out a treaty which thus far has prevented the earth from being encircled by orbital weapons platforms? Is he smoking crack?
Nope. I personally think that anyone who goes through all the trouble and considerable risk of travelling to another celestial body should be able to do so without being fettered with the need to claim that land in the name of some obsolete notion of political division. Read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein some time. It will point out some pretty good reasons why nationalizing a faraway celestial body is a bad idea.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
My guess is that many of the same tensions that pushed the 13 Colonies against England in 1776, as well as countless similar political situations before and since will come to bear again.
I don't think so. The psychology and sociology is very different. In the 18th century Britain had a functioning monarchy, as opposed to today's symbolic one, and a heavily entrenched class system. Britain had a global empire where local populations were controlled through force of arms. The concenpt of individual rights that is ngrained in today's population did not exist at the time. At the time your "right" to do something was subservient to the please of the king, this was the norm. There was some oversight of the king, the monarchy was constitutional not absolute, but it was largely done by other members of the royal class. All these people had to do to avoid revolution was to seat colonial representatives in the House of Commons. If they had done that we would probably be members of the commonwealth and celebrate the queen's whatever as they do in Canada and Australia.
In contrast in the 21st century United States the right to participate in a democratic government, and many other rights, are considered a birth right. The likelihood of abuse sufficient to provoke a revolution is unlikely. Recall that the American Revolution barely happened and was successful largely through foreign intervention by France (and Spain ?). If the United States creates off-world colonies it is much more likely to loose them through hostile invasion than by popular revolution.
What world power has ever refused to use it's influence, and remained a world power?
What world power has remained a world power?
..if I get there first, it's MINE. I dare you to come and arrest me for violating your pitiful treaty earthling!
(-8
I hereby invoke Godwin's law. You lose.
Does this treaty cover the Illudium Q-37 Space Modulator? We will never colonize mars, the martians won't allow it. Read more by following these links.
http://www.uncoveror.com/martians.htm
http://www.uncoveror.com/mars2.htm
Dear NASA: Leave the red planet alone, or we will really provoke them this time!
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
I'd have thought that colonies, once they are of the size to sustain civilian populations (as opposed to being just researchers and scientists) would want to form their own government and laws, as opposed to being ruled by a bunch of `foreign' (alien?) beaurocrats.
Yeah, they might base their laws (and constitution?) on that of the US, cos it seems a pretty good starting place, but to be ruled by a far off land, and have to pay federal income taxes to a place tens of millions of miles away? Come on, you Americans must be in a uniquely qualified position to know that colonies don't like to do that!
K.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
Yeah one world government is cool as long as
it is not headed up by a hitler or a
noonan singh(khan). I'm not sure that the
UN is ready to govern a planet or two.
I think that national extensions of existing
nations in the form of outposts then
colonies, would be likely.
And this will then be followed by
rebellion and independence from earth(at a
later date say 200 years).
If my friends and I somehow manage get into space and colonize our own little spot, the US and any country/organization/etc will not be recognized.
I suggest that anyone arguing this article first go and read the short story "The Man Who Sold The Moon" by Robert Heinlein... lots of these questions (and many more) had been brought up way back in the late '40s...
What it boiled down to was this: Whoever founds it ought to set the laws, and therefore set the 'nation' (or whatever sovereign entity) as an independent entity. Get the UN to recognize them as independent, but not to place themselves under UN control (given teh distances involved, there is no authority on Earth that could effectively enforce anything on Mars... the Moon, maybe, but not Mars.)
Now, we don't have such things as governments listening to our calls, emails or such (yet, of course they might come, must be awake) without court order. DMCA, Patriot Act, you know, you read Slashdot.
Slashdot is a pretty misinformed place, slashdot is sensationalism to further an agenda, slashdot is not unbiased reporting, slashdot is the nerd equivalent of the trash tabloid.
Regarding rights: there is still judicial approval of evidence gathered against a U.S. citizen. The rules of evidence required to convict a U.S. citizen still exist. You confuse the rules used to stop an act of terrorism with the rules to convict, they are different.
> I, unfortunately, am an American
Yes, that is indeed unfortunate. Would you please rectify that at your earliest convenience? I hear China, North Korea, Cuba, et. al. are recruiting.
Asshole.
If Slashdot posters read National Review more often, they might get a clue.
I think there are certain groups outside of the US who seriously need to clean the crap out of their ears.
Nice troll tho.
yes little Lisa
as General Chaos Theory would predict space travel and the resulting colonization of distance planets will result in the laser guns, killer robots, death stars and the biting and light saber slashing and explosions and the
Actually he is. You just happened to never been abroad and fed propaganda the whole your life, so you have no way to compare those people and consequences of their actions.
You are ignorant. We don't have to go overseas to find opposition, to find dissent, to find pro-Hitler, pro-Stalin, pro-Mao, etc. perspectives. In short, we have access to all sides, even those we vehemently disagree with. I think you should consider that perhaps you have digested a little too much propaganda yourself, it is merely anti-U.S. propaganda, merely bullshit of a different color.
Well...it was a weak one...I am calling you on it. Kinda sad...I am not even an American.
Oh no, it's FAR more logical to prevent private property ownership by those who can get something done.
Yeah, let's protect space as a free zone, so GHANA doesn't get cheated out of their fair opportunity that they will exercise in what....500 years?
Or wait, let's not commercially exploit space because we're evil capitalists since God knows that the Chinese or Indians or WHOEVER else gets up there (other than us) will be oh-so-altruistic and less self interested than the USA would ever be. I'm sure if they got there first, they would 'reserve a place for America' because, well, they are just nice & good & right & kind & warm & fuzzy, unlike cruel cold-hearted greedy militarist American gov't/megacorps.
This attitude (USA = bad, everyone else = good) is just the flip side of the same "noble savage" bullshit that leftists have been spouting for a century. If the USA is the only one who can make it to the moon, let the USA exploit the moon (every state who has been to the moon please raise your hands...oh, nobody else eh?).
-Styopa
Slow down there. You seem a tad bit rabid. The point is the treaty has a chilling effect on possible future colonization by ANY country. The US is just one country that might have an interest in seeing it go bye-bye. Personally, I don't see any reason why the US *should* stay in this treaty. It clearly, and legally, gives us a way out that would allow US citizens to claim land rights on these other bodies. Any other nation is welcome to join us, it's not like we are saying "Well, it's ALL ours now just because we can see it in the sky or land junk on it!" No, the point is that if you can establish a colony on another planet, those people should have the right to choose whatever form of government they wish, including becoming another US state should they desire it (or a member of the British Commonwealth, etc).
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
"And if you don't know what I'm talking about, even if you don't agree with me, then you're EXACTLY who the fuck I'm talking about."
That doesn't sound French - it sounds like John Ashcroft.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
This thread is right. I, unfortunately, am an American, and the last thing I want to see (knowing the sadism and evil of most Americans) is what the article's author suggests: spatial areas or other planetary bodies being ruled by America. It won't benefit ordinary Americans, whether good or bad; it will benefit corporate CEOs, period.
I, fortunately, am an American, and I still think that the National Review article was off-base, and that the current treaty serves a vital purpose. Just because one yahoo at the National Review sounds like an ultranationalist, don't paint us all with that brush.
As long as a self sustaining, off-world colony can double humanity's chances, it doesn't matter what their politics are.
I, unfortunately, am an American
I also consider it quite unfortunate that you are an American. By all means, renounce your citizenship at your earliest convenience, you snivelling twerp.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Now that was one biased article. Let's see, we have UN slammed repeatedly, open source commie liberal trash berated, Bush looked up to for crapping on international treaties.. Almost good enough to be on /.! I especially enjoyed the part which equated foreign aid to funding kleptocracies. Personally I think much of the foreign aid is spent in ways that hurts the recipient nations more than helps them, but .. Hard to come up with something better.
Writer misses the point in any case. You need warships to claim a piece of soil as a private property. And as far as I know, US doesn't have spacegoing navy. Yet.
That's the only thing that's relevant to the article.
The only one.
BushCo, Inc. wants to put nuclear weapons in space and wants to be able to tell everyone about it.
Can you dig it?
http://members.aol.com/blckcof/cyrus1.wav
What kind of wussy name is Earthling anyway? I'm a Terran damnit!
How exactly is someone at National Review (William Buckely's right-wing rag) wanting to unilaterally disavow an international treaty "news"? If the treaty doesn't involve freeing our wealthy businesses to more easily exploit some other country's populace, the folks at NR don't want to hear about it.
I suppose the logic he uses to achieve his goal (of calling the treaty bad) can be interesting, in an acedemic sense. Logic of course is just a means to an end to these folks, not an end in and of itself. A little bit of a twist here...divide by 0 there, and presto! Its proven. But I can get my fill of such silly exercises by watching religous "news" programs on TV.
I've been around a great deal of the planet, between military time, and various jobs. **I**, as do more people than you realize, recognize propaganda, of ALL sorts, and file it accordingly in the nearest /dev/null equivalent. Is Bush evil ? Hardly ? Is he perfect ? Again, hardly. But compared with rulers who have been documented as implementing genocide, like Saddam, or brutally suppressing dissent, like China, or just starving people to death due to their delusions of grandeur and general incompetence (Kim Jong Il and North Korea), you realize that we Americans could do FAR worse. . .
When we get into ideological pissing contests, nobody wins, because everyone digs in to defend their entrenched position on a given issue. . .
Now, back to the issue of colonizing space. . . be it the Moon, Mars, or an O'Neill-type Space Colony, when the residents decide they want political independence, they'll likely make it a fait accompli. . . . After all, being at the top of a fairly deep gravity well has all sorts of economic and military advantages, when push comes to shove. . . .
Article 2 prevents space, the Moon and celectial bodies from appropriation or sovereinty. It doesn't seem to say that those entities are protected in part, the implication is that the wholes are protected.
So while a State could not lay claim to the Moon, it could lay claim to some mountain, valley or other area.
Aricle 8 states that a State that places an object into space or on a celestial body, or builds one in space or on a celecial body may maintain "juristiction and control" of such an object.
So a country could put up a structure with atmosphere, lighting and climate cotrol, etc and restrict use of that according to their own agenda. One might have to provide unfeddered access to the underlying ground, but that seems to be all.
So in the end, we have a treaty that doesn't (in my view) accomplish much of anything regarding non-state control of celectial bodies.
Sure they can't "control" a planet, but perhaps large portions of one, and certainly the parts they build stuff on.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Do you not know about slashdot signatures, do they not allow links, or are you just trying to spam?
The article clarifies that national sovereignty can't be extended to regions of Mars or the Moon. Personal property, my 2 acres on Mars on my moisture vaporator farm is another thing. I suspect that corporations and governments will do much to bend those laws if they are able. By the same token, there is nothing is to stop the colonists on the Moon from creating solar-powered rail-guns or bi-propellent canons to defend their right to form new states.
There will be great cooperation in and amongst the multi-national settlements at first; the only people to be chosen at first will be scientists and astronauts, possibly some academicians and a few well-to-do individuals. These will be well-trained, well-groomed individuals, not given to panic or snap judgments.
We'll need the equivalent of marshals from every nation at first. I say every nation, because I don't trust the UN to administer anything in a logical manner. Human interest is at work there, plus I look at the UN in a more pragmatic way in that they are a monopoly. Need I say why someone might not trust a monopoly?
I don't believe that utopia is obtainable in space, where human interests are concerned. Some humans will always believe they have a right to more than the average human. The best example of what this future might eventually look like can be found in the Falkenberg's Legion series of books by Jerry Pournelle. One can make all manner of speculation about how the Earth may evolve politically, but the colonies and settlements are a long way from the watchful eye of Earth.
The party's over
Nothing gives the US that right, nor anyone else for that matter. No one gave that right to Rome, Greece, Spain, England, Germany or the USSR either. Countries assume that kind of power, sometimes it is for good and sometimes it is not. Better the US than Germany or China I say. By the way, most Americans are not powermongers in this regard. I personally could not give a damn about becoming involved in the affairs of nations. That's right, I would have left France to the Nazis, I would not shed a tear over the wowes of Israel, etc. I would however become very interested in the actions of other nations when they threaten our way of life, not the corps, the people of the USA. That is when you would see a true abuse of power, I would love to see us nuke most of the middle east for starters. Yes true, I do not care about the rights of other cultures when they interfere with mine. Then I am all for the biggest badass on the block obliterating those pathetic annoyances of 3rd world countries and the scum that populate them. hopefully you would be residing in one of those pathetic countries when the time came.
Americans tend to forget that russians were the first to actually go into outer space ( Gagarin's journey around the orbit ). If this treaty is canceled we can claim ALL the god damn UNIVERSE for our own since we were the first
Is always called the rebels, don't you know?
Cheers,
Backov
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
Without Property Rights, which you are labeling capitalism, there can be no freedom.
If you can't own the piece of land you put your martian bubble farm up on (let alone the bubble), then anybody can take it away from you.
Human nature shows us that if the biggest, strongest critter is not held back by the laws enforcing the rights of the weaker individual, then the biggest and strongest will rule.
Remember this as well;
Poor people are poor because they keep doing the things that make them poor.
Rich people are rich because they keep doing the things that make them rich.
What good are property rights and national sovereignty if individuals don't go into space.
This treaty is irrelevant, we have to stop publically funding space travel because it will always lose out to pork barrel politics. Also, the mission objectives will always be earth centric. Individuals and groups of individuals must have the legal lattitude to launch their own space craft. I'm guessing a Mars mission could be thrown togfether for a few million dollars in a few years with some creativity and initiative.
Real good books written by Kim Stanley Robinson. The books tackle this kind of issue. The colonization of mars, mars' fight for independence, and the eventual war that comes about.
I kinda believe that we will need a huge alien theat in order to forget our own petty squabbles. If there was something dangerous to mankind as a specis, i think we would become much more unified as "mankind". Bring on the Klingons!!
You're only going to get yourself into trouble. I was looking out for the best interests of everyone, yourself included; if you don't want to shut it now, eventually you'll learn, if only upon death. No reason to take it personally: you're just an idiot and could save yourself embarassment by not expressing your "thoughts."
And you still know nothing about missle defense.
Fortunately for you and the rest of us, if you don't want to be an american you can get the fuck out. I'll buy some chiclets off your ass the next time I'm visiting some backwater part of Mexico.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
At least initially, any such settlement will have VERY close ties to Earth, since there's a big need for initial funding (think private investors) and any complex supplies (computers, advanced materials, medicines) will NOT be locally manufactured for a long time. Enforcement of off-Earth issues relevant to Earth parties (such as returning investment dollars, settling property disputes) will be as easy as preventing the next supply ship from launching. It'll be a long time before any off-Earth settlement will be able to be fully self-sufficient; and it may never really happen.
Energy: time to change the picture.
These two groups are resisted by original colonists and "Reds" who want an Independent Mars. Struggle to be continued in Green Mars, sorry haven't read that one.
neil
"It is time for President Bush to ensure that humanity's new frontier will enjoy constitutional freedom rather than U.N. despotism."
Sort of like it was time, in the 19th century, for President Davis to ensure that America's southeastern states would enjoy confederate freedom rather than Yankee despotism...
No 'Space' Treaty is worth the paper it has been printed on. Possession will be the law. It will be a land grab that surpasses the creation and westward expansion of the United States. If you can get there and enhabit it, its yours. So what if some nation/individual claims a piece of Mars at x,y coordinates. If they are not there to ENFORCE thier claim, they are screwed. Someone else will inhabit and defend the territory. Only once enough settlers to a celestial body ban together and form their own government and enforcement angencies can a system of legal (paper) ownership be established and enforced. Reread some American history because its going to be repeated.
A few things stick out about this guy's commentary which make me think that he's basically a right-wing ideologue. First there's his approval of Bush pulling out of the ABM treaty. There's also his comments on foreign aid, although I actually agree with him that foreign aid was basically destructive. What he doesn't mention about this, is that we actually used foreign aid to further our interests, we were not simply giving handouts. We used food aid as a dumping ground for our surplus, often destroying third world farming economies by driving down food prices. Their governments were left dependent on our handouts, then we started attaching strings. (Bangladesh is an example.) Also, most of our foreign aid has gone to Israel, which is not a "kleptocracy," but they do spend it on weapons, I believe. What really got me, though, is his characterization of Texan independence. Texans did not "choose to associate themselves" with Mexico, they moved into Mexican territory. They were welcome there initially. However, they brought their slaves over, and slavery was illegal in Mexico. Later, Mexico had the power to come to Texas and actually enforce the laws that other Mexicans lived under; that is when Texans revolted.
Of course, there's also his characterization of the UN as a "self-serving collection of dictatorships." The UN's resolutions usually seem to me a pretty accurate reading of the world's opinion on matters. That he doesn't agree with the rest of the world does not mean that other countries are all self-serving dictatorships; particularly hypocritical when he seems to advocate a Hobbesian self-interested outlook to foreign policy. Seems to me that the right wing's problem with the UN is that it's not in their pocket.
In any case, though, the article is an interesting look at some issues of space exploration which have been largely overlooked. I don't see how we'll govern on the surface of Mars -- remember Thomas Paine? Also think about the possibility that an industrial collapse on Earth due to the exhaustion of fossil fuels would leave settlers stranded. What if they survived? There's a science fiction story there...
We might as well let the UN take over the world right now if we're going to colonize *anything* beyond this planet. The UN is a bad thing. It isn't good to have 1 ruling power because it is simply *too* much power. U.S. troops already don't even fight for the U.S. anymore; they fight for the UN and anyone who says they want to fight for the U.S. and not the UN doesn't get in or gets thrown out. Whoever gets to the moon or Mars first can start colonizing and making their own laws for their territories just like they did as the U.S. was being created.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
That's the type of response typical to people who support fanatical, fundamentalist tyrannies. Deep in your heart you know he's evil, but you don't care as long as he makes you wealthy and militarily dominates others. You'd kill the world to satisfy your own ego.
> It is curious that he refers to the UN as an
> "infamously corrupt and self-serving collection
> of dictatorships"; the last time I checked, the
> United States and the rest of the Western
> democracies were members of the UN as well.
Yes, the US is a member, along with the other semi free countries. And hopelessly outnumbered by barbarian children from the third world who have equal voting rights. If you think Somolia == Canada you are part of the problem demonstrated by the UN. And no I don't have a ready suggestion for a more realistic distribution of votes for the UN. Basically it is just a silly, but very dangerous, idea that needs to be eliminated.
Maybe in another 50-100 years the various regions will have equalized enough to consider the idea afresh. Until then regional organization will serve as international forums to hammer out needful treaties and such. NATO and OAS being the ones of interest for the US. Europe is rapidly collapsing into a single nationstate and will have completed that transition by the end of the 50-100 years I proposed. China will be in the same league or bigger by then. Assuming merger mania continues in the other parts of the world we would be left with at most a dozen mega states of roughly equal stature to form a new world over government that would have a better chance of success. Especially if republican notions happened to be in vogue at the time. Power divided and limited hozontally and vertically over so many layers and cultures would be kept in check for a bit while it absorbed all power to the top.
By then, with luck, we would have spread to the nearby bodies and those peoples would be ready to seceed and start their own governments free from the baggage from here on Earth. The cycle would begin again. Small nation states would form, eventually band together/be conquered, etc.
Because there really are two sorts of people. Those who can make it on their own and want only to be left alone to do it, and those sheep who crave a shepherd. The promise of unexplored territory is that it gives the first sort a place to go where there aren't yet any sheep needing to be protected from themselves.
Democrat delenda est
Step One: Go to Mars
Step Two: ???
Step Three: Profit!!
-smead
Can't they just ammend the Treaty, Section 2, to say:
"Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to any appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
Of course I can see disputes rising in the form of, "We're not on Earth anymore, so you're not the boss of me!" That's just human nature.
Expanding our occupation of the Solar System to the moon and Mars will probably only prove that no matter where we are, we will fight each other for it.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
Slightly off topic, but...
"Given the Bush administration's commendable interest in favoring American interests over the opinions of the post-national bureaucrats and chattering classes..."
Nothing this "president" has done since day 1 has been commendable. Kyoto, ABMT, Arctic Wildlife Drilling, an assault on the constitution, turning what should have been a surgical international police effort into a civilian-killing war for oil!
I just want to apologize to the rest of the world for these things. I didn't vote for him and neither did the majority of Americans. We need to impeach this ignorant, spoiled frat-boy before it's too late... if it's not already.
-A concerned American patriot who's not falling for the propaganda.
There have been a number of democracies that the US has tried to topple, so that "friendlier" dictators could be placed in power. Our government tried to pull off a coup in Venezuela just a month or so ago. We also sell arms to countries like Turkey, even though they have a history of violentry oppressing their minorities and violating human rights. Not to mention giving economic preference to countries like China, despite their suppression of free speech and dentention of political dissidents. Shenannigans like that is what gives our "beacon of the free world" its hypocritical stench. The USA talks a good line when it wants to, but when it comes down to action, principles go right out the window and it's all about money.
You should fall on your knees and thank whatever god you answer to that it was the United States [...] Until you have a better solution, and can find the modicum of courage to offer it publicly, zip it "You Fucking Coward"
The above is an excellent example of the arrogance and ignorance that so many find offensive about Americans. I suggest you read up on what the US government is really doing before declaring it the saviour of the world... (here's a hint: your TV isn't giving you the whole story.)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
man you must be SICK.
...
5 8&cid=3640 311
/. discussion for simply any point neocon made and in that discussion US was the bad country.
... how much does it cost to studdy at Harvard or MIT?
So: my public bet, please moderate up and I make a second post to be moderated down for karma neutrality
The one who brings for this posting:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=336
for each point one single US case of similar implications gets $100 via pay pal or any other easy to use money transfer from europe.
I'm just to tired to search such stuff up but I remember to have seen a similar
Just as an easy hint: in no singel country you mentioned above was a single execution of a person since decades. I remember that even children of age of 12 get executed in the US for murder. Or for that matter just recently in Texas mind ill people with an IQ of an ape got executed.
You bring that stupid cases and claim this would restrict my freedom
I can visit ANY University in Europe FOR FREE. I gladly pay taxes for that.
My country reduced CO2 emissions about 19% allready in relation to 1990 emissions. I gladly pay energy taxes for that.
You are such a mindless clueless guy, it hurts to read your posts.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
yeah ... mod this down if you mod my bet above up.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
When Al Gore was sent to negotiate Kyoto, the senate told him that certian things would be required before they would consider ratifying Kyoto. These included: 1. International CO2 permit trading. 2. Must include countries other than the EU (specifically china and india, who are not nearly as industrialized as the US and EU, but are rapidly developing, and will exceed our C02 outputs in the future. 3. A mechanism for crediting CO2 abatement, not just emissions reduction. Not all of the senate's demands were met, but gore signed the final document anyways. Interestingly enough, when it became clear that the US wouldn't ratify the treaty, the EU gave Austrialia conecssions that it didnt give the US, because they wanted them on board badly.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
nope... sorry about my dumbass english..
by the way
english language has a couple of hundreds synonymes for damaging or killing someone...
makes one think huh?....
Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
NERVA rockets (which use a reactor to superheat hydrogen for propulsion, at much higher efficiency levels than chemical rockets) are the key to exploration and exploitation of the Solar System. Our chemical rockets have hit peaks of efficiency limited by the physics of combustion that are not surmountable, and they fall far short of the ISP (a measure of efficiency and power) needed for manned exploration of our neighborhood.
NERVA rockets are not the only practical high-ISP drive by any stretch. As long as you have transit times of months or more, ion drives and other electric drives work fine, and give you even more Isp than NERVA (which is limited to exhaust temperatures that the engine core can withstand).
While you'd still need a nuclear plant for power production in the outer solar system, in the inner solar system solar powered ion or plasma drives work quite well.
NERVA *would* be useful for ground-to-orbit trips, as it can give enough thrust for more than 1g acceleration (unlike ion, plasma, and other exotics), but this isn't the bottleneck for exploration/colonization. Until spacecraft engineering becomes as well-understood and routine as, say, automobile engineering, any man-rated spacecraft you send up will cost enough to make launch costs insignificant.
Any construction that requires enough material for launch costs to be the dominant cost wouldn't be supplied from earth - the moon is a very convenient source of metals, glass, ceramics, etc, and I'm sure someone will point out that asteroidal material is fairly accessible as well.
In short, there isn't any application for which NERVA rockets are the only solution.
...with the vocabulary of "US interests" and underneath sounds disturbingly similar to the musings of the old 19-th century US imperialists, "manifest destiny" and all that. He gives no apologies for - and even encourages - ripping up treaties the US has signed (ABM, now the Outer Space Treaty) because they limit the signatories. This is exactly what these treaties were designed for: so that no one signatory would take advantage of military strength or position to cause conflicts with the others. Kopel states:
"The Bush administration has shown that it is willing to reject politically correct international agreements which harm America's interests -- such as the recently repudiated agreement creating an International Criminal Court, and the ABM treaty."
The ideas of "political correctness" that he's referring to here are the prosecution of genocide, the escalation of a nuclear weapons arms race, and the competitive militarization of outer space. If these ideals are mere "political correctness" then count me PC any day.
The rest of his article is rife with examples of his thinly-shrouded desire for American expansionism instead of a co-operative & unifying space effort by humanity, like "Far better for the settlers of Mars to enjoy the protections of the Constitution of the United States -- as did the settlers of the American Territories in North America in the years before they achieved statehood." and unilateralism "[...] the United States could simply undertake an ambitious program of human space exploration [...] without viewing Article 2 as an impediment -- but this approach might prove problematic in the long run."
Additionally Kopel's view of countries and respected international organisations outside of the US could hardly be lower "Given the Bush administration's commendable interest in favoring American interests over the opinions of the post-national bureaucrats and chattering classes" [we can only imagine he is referring to the United Nations and supporters of treaties here] and "[...] ban appropriation by some super-national body -- such as the United Nations. Surely the settlers of Mars would gain little from being placed under the thumb of an infamously corrupt and self-serving collection of dictatorships none of which (Russia excepted) have contributed anything to the exploration of space." Noting that he also referrs to the State Department as a "kleptocracy", it is hard to imagine he likes any group or nation outside of the US military or who is in favour with the Bush Administration.
His arguments that the US should scrap the Outer Space Treaty except for a few Articles does not hold water either. Usually scrapping a treaty a nation has signed involves scrapping the whole thing or keeping it whole. Anything else would require re-negotiation with the other signatories (95 in the case of the Outer Space Treaty) and it's hard to see any situation where they would be willing to - in effect - gut it. The other disturbing assumption to Kopel's arguments is that it is perfectly OK (he used the term "commendable") for a US administration to unilaterally tear up lawful international agreements whenever they become inconvenient. If the Bush Administration continued this trend, how credible would the US be if it ever wanted to conclude trade, military, or political agreements with other nations in the future?
Many Americans probably do not realise or care how offensive Kopel's language is to people in other countries, like Canada who has historically experienced first hand the effects of Manifest Destiny policies. Nor how offensive it is to probably the majority of informed readers of Slashdot, who intelligently see humanity's exploration of space as something greater and more inspiring than a dangerously militarized land grab.
A. Blair
Property rights encompass a lot more than just claiming ownership of a region: mining for materials, proximity to relevant features or facilities - some rights will obviously be worth a lot more than others. Right now the ITU regulates geosynchronous orbital slots with internationally agreed-upon "property" rules - obviously geosynchronous orbit is closely tied to Earth itself, but similar issues would be there for any set of orbital parameters in high demand. Something like this is needed for the surfaces of the Moon and Mars, and for asteroids in their bulk in the relatively near term (well before 2050).
Energy: time to change the picture.
The International Institute of Air and Space Law in Leiden has been around since 1986, and there are a number of others.
Given that the space economy is somewhere around the $100 billion/year mark these days (mostly communications satellites of course) there's plenty of room for lawyers to step in and help out. Who gets sued when a half-billion dollar satellite is blown up on the launch pad? Or when a rocket goes astray and destroys a warehouse or two? Who argues on your behalf with international bodies like the ITU, or helps you get your export permits to launch through the State Department's tough regulations? Even NASA has a bunch of lawyers on staff! Law is part of the world we live in, as much as science or technology. Just doesn't get much coverage on
Energy: time to change the picture.
how many beads would Mars cost us?
Evil is the money of root.
...well, guess what? The US can get the hell out of the the UN, no one ruins the UN more than the US presence.
I hope the US stays out of the human right committe once and for all.
If the Dubran conference was to label the US as a racist nation, the US would have attended.. but God forbids anyone talk about holy Zionism.
Deutschland uber alles!
The funny part, for me at least, is years ago I worked at NSS and knew a number of folks mentioned in the article and bashed here on ./. Most of the NSS management were screaming liberals. Some of the NSS directors were liberals with a few libertarians thrown in for good measure.
I first heard this viewpoint aired at a NSS conference in 1991, so it's hardly a Bush thing or very new. At first, I thought the idea was nuts.
These years later, I'm convinced it is the only way we will ever settle space. Period. And in the end saves the human race.
When you toss away the idea of private ownership of property off planet Earth, you toss away any long term hope for the human race.
You put your own, bloody, mighty-high, liberal, barely hidden Marxist values in front of the very simple fact that we could be wiped out in six months by a chunk of rock.
You toss away the fact that unless we get off this rock, we will someday die. Might be a few billion years off, but it will happen.
Funny to think that there isn't a sysadmin, network designer or systems geek on slashdot that doesn't work everyday to make their network/systems/farms/whatever more redundant.
But you don't think a second about providing for a backup for our DNA and collected knowledge of the human race.
And if you think that someday, a Trek-like, UN, style world government will do the job, you are dreaming, have watched way too much Trek and don't really grasp human nature.
Europeans who bash this idea as a nationalist American plot fail to understand that the US is where it is today because of the private enterprise and the risks people will take with their money and their sweat to better themselves. If you don't like it, do what your ancestors did and stay home.
Liberal environmentalists who bash this idea really take the cake. The settlement of space is, in the end, the most likely savor of the Earth's resources. Why continue to tear up the Earth when most basic resources can be harvested from lifeless solar system bodies like the moon or NEA's?
Don't form an immediate opinion on this. Think about it real hard, and search yourself real deep before just tossing this to the side.
Pop Quiz- Would any major country allow the UN to intervene in it's domestic policy involuntarily? If they didn't want UN involvement, it wouldn't happen because nobody truly respects the UN as a soverign force and very few nations would be willing to give up their soverignty to the UN. Sure, the smaller dissenting members could be beaten into submission, but would larger members like the UK, USA, Russian Federation, France, China, Canada, etc, etc, secede authority to them? Say it with me: "Hell no." Basically, none of the UN's member countries actually respect the UN unless it's to their benefit. The only way to make the UN a potent force would be to give it total autonomous authority with a force that could do substantial damage to any of it's members. It would have to be a entity all it's own, it's peoples severing all ties of loyalty to their countries of origin and said countries would have to surrender their soverignty to the UN body. This is it's ultimate goal, but it's one that will never happen for the UN. Maybe in the far flung future under another organization, but the UN is a failure for the most part. As it is, the only countries it has lasting effects on are 3rd world heaps. It's true on Earth and space won't change that one bit.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I remember that even children of age of 12 get executed in the US for murder.
Where do you get this stuff, angel'o'sphere? The same place you got your recent claims that at Tianenmen square the protesters attacked the Chinese Army, and not vice versa (!), and that the people of Tibet enjoy perfect religious freedom?
Slashdot isn't a news site... It's editorials all the way. Some fact mixed in with a ass-ton of bias and opinion.
"Editorials for Nerds. Stuff that is 60% irrelevant, 30% biased, 10% matters."
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Well, yeah, that certainly seems right. The richest guy on the planet certainly has little personal need for government, has free reign to go anywhere, do just about anything he wants, I'd say he's pretty free. However, a guy on welfare is dependent on the government for his very survival; what's to keep the government from creating conditions for that support, be it 'vote for me and I'll give you a new drug benifit,' or 'ignore me wiping out my enemies.'
But to address the larger subject, when you start to intentionally punish people differently for the SAME crimes for ANY reason, you are abandoning the principal of equal protection under the law in favor of a social engineering project that has no limits. Hitler did the same thing, railing against 'big business' and the 'rich' and those 'filthy Jews,' always taking advantage of the willingness of the chattering class to ignore equal protection in favor of fixing societal injustices, and accumilating economic power in the government as leverage against anyone dirty 'rich' guy who dare oppose him!
>Just as an easy hint: in no singel country you
... how much does it cost to
>mentioned above was a single execution of a
>person since decades.
It has been very well proven statistically that for every 1 capital execution, 12 murders are prevented. I see this as protecting the rights of the 12 to live and pursue happiness, versus carrying out justice against 1 murderer who lost his rights when he tried to take someone else's away.
>I remember that even
>children of age of 12 get executed in the US for
>murder.
Never happened, you're a liar.
>Or for that matter just recently in
>Texas mind ill people with an IQ of an ape got
>executed.
Never happened, you're a liar. The guy had an IQ of like 78 in a pre-trial I.Q. test, stupid but not at all 'ape-like' or retarded.
>You bring that stupid cases and claim this would
>restrict my freedom
>studdy at Harvard or MIT?
lots, but few people GO to the hell-hole that is Harvard. Most people, like me, get scholarships, grants, loans, etc., and work their way through college. Most American universities are in fact, FAR less expensive than you think.
>I can visit ANY University in Europe FOR FREE. I
>gladly pay taxes for that.
That's an overstatement, there are those pesky test scores to consider...
>My country reduced CO2 emissions about 19%
>allready in relation to 1990 emissions. I gladly
pay energy taxes for that.
You go ahead and pay those taxes, out of your ever-shrinking check.
Also, that's easy for an under-industrialised coutry to say.
These silly treaties are all about trust. I trust my competitor not launch a nuclear strike because niether of us have a nuclear missile defense. I won't take nuclear weapons into space because I trust my competitor to do the same and it would ruin the purely scientific and exploratory nature of space. I trust the neighborhood bully not to knock me silly while my back is to him because we both have fists and could seriously hurt one another. These treaties also hinge upon their signers being thinking, rational people capable of looking at the "correct" big picture, the correct big picture being peace in our time. Hitler signed lots of treaties. So did Stalin. Listen and listen good: YOU CAN NOT BASE YOUR COUNTRY'S SAFTEY AND SURVIVAL ON THE SUPPOSIVE GOODWILL OF THE COMPETITION. Your country. My country. This treaty and every one like it assumes everybody will play by the rules, nice and orderly. No punches below the belt, sir, Thank you. The "rules" are ALWAYS broken in war; If not in the first strike then in what follows. Why will Pakistan use nuclear weapons in a fight with India? Because they know they can't win a war by India's rule book. They've said so themsleves, India has a superior conventional force than us so the only way we can defend our soverignty is by going nuclear. The rules and treaties say that's a no-no. Watch them care as the enemy advances across their boarders. Watch them say "We're good and decent people. No nukes. Let them conquer us." These assnine treaties are oblivious to human nature and in the end they're going to cost more lives than they save because there are idiots in power and these morons don't care about your defunct treaties or feelings
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I'll spell it out for you. We Americans feel it is our destiny to 'get there' first. Noone is saying others should not compete, just that we ought to at least play the game.
Wow, that was amazing. All those words and not one fact. You are missing the point of this disscussion. Humans will be humans no matter what planet they are on.
Dictators become powerful over people by gathering strong arms around them and then assume power. NOT by obeying the law, but by ignoring it. Your utopia cannot exist without eliminating freewill.
What I want to know from you is, "How do you propose to alter human behaviour in such a fundemental way?"
As you can see I beleive the founding fathers of the United States of America had it right. Would you rather Hitler won WWII. His fascist/socialist plan would have fit what you describe. Other choices include Cuba, where you can have a diet of around 250 calories a day while you watch politicians ride around in Mercedes, or go back to the former (Note: Former) Soviet Union where while waiting in line for 8 hours to buy bread you watch the politicos drive by in their (Wait for it...) Mercedes.
It is not possible for socialism (even StarTrek socialism) to work. Where there are humans, there is corruption.
Now go wrap yourself in your red flag and swim to Cuba.
NONE OF THIS COMMUNICATION WOULD BE POSSIBLE IF NOT FOR CAPITALISM. I can't think of any communist/socialist/fascist/leftist states that have this kind of standard of living. Can you?
Capitalism is here to stay. When you grow up and quit smoking you will realize that I am right.
Why is a certain geographical spot a nation? Why can the people there say "this is our place and it's our right to claim this land"?
It's simple. It's theirs because they can protect it from others. When they can no longer, it wont be theirs anymore.
Will work for bandwidth
Hah! If we start seriously expanding into our solar system then the really powerful space aliens may just decide that its time to put those uppity humans back in their proper place.
Please, please, please leave. John Walker Lindh did it, you can too. You'll be happier and so will the rest of us. Suicide is also worth considering.
Whatever you do, get out of my face, you worthless piece of filth.
Many rich men in "wild-west" capitalist countries such as Russia cannot walk down the street without a posse of bodyguards. I don't consider that to be freedom.
I'm a nut too, so I have nothing against nuts pers se. I mailed him back to tell him he's a jerk, and give him some stick. My comments were meant to get gut reaction from the author and give me a laugh, not to inflame the general US public, so read past the language and listen to the ideas if you please.
Mail text follows:
Borders came about on planet earth because of human evolutions inescapable divergence around continental boundaries and ensuing racial divisions. With the advent of technology that leads us to space those boundaries become completely artificial, so why cling to the old forms and norms that might lead us to make the same geo-political mistakes again ?
The international space communities have done a good job of keeping the politically messy situation they have inherited as open and cooperative as possible under the circumstances. They deserve overwhelming financial support, this is the only part of your editorial that makes any sense.
So you urge the US to rush out and proclaim it 'owns' parts of new worlds? You are a dinosaur my friend, and a frightened, paranoid and greedy one at that.
The corporate citizens of the USA and their political prostitutes have cast acquisitive eyes on their less developed neighbouring nations for years as its own internal mismanagement, resource shortages and depletion escalate. I have to ask, do you really belong in Hawaii, Alaska or any of the other non-adjoining areas you occupy? All I get from your words is that the expansion-focused factions of your society are feeling frustrated with a world that these days frowns on forcible aquisition (and would be prepared to deny those that attempt it just as forcibly).
Rather than whipping up sentiment to race out and find another patch of resources to own (read - exploit), why don't you try motivating americans to clean up the lovely bit of the world they are responsible for and restructure their manufacturing and economic processes into something that may be actually sustainable with the resources you have? If you weren't so hopelessly mismangaged and feeling the pressures of same I wonder if you'd still hold to the same attitudes.
Also - why would you think that the US constitution is anything to be wished for? Perhaps I miss something, but the precious rights it proclaims so grandiously are things that other developed nations take for granted. Legislation provides the same result without an archaic and restrictive template that is almost impossible to change. From the outside, the US is one of the most hidebound and restrictive developed nations on earth. Why propagate the template that led you there in any space-faring society ? Perhaps you might consider asking the people who go to live on mars what they would like. Novel concept for you I expect.
And the 'New Frontier' Star Trek tag you borrowed - space in that vision of the future was owned by no geography or political faction. The idea would be abhorrent to those that drew a vision of a future where those of russian, chinese, uk and us (think of the original Enterprise crew) descent worked side by side and owed allegiance to no single nation. Perhaps you should do your homework before borrowing lines from ideologies so diametrically opposed to your own.
ps evolve or fall by the wayside.
HumbleOpinion:
Why do those protective laws only apply to US citizens? If the laws are right and just, why don't they apply to any people falling under the jurisdiction of US law ?
US law itself shows that when Americans are doing the judging, its one rule for Americans, and another rule for everyone else.
----------------[snip]-----------------------
Regarding rights: there is still judicial approval of evidence gathered against a U.S. citizen. The rules of evidence required to convict a U.S. citizen still exist. You confuse the rules used to stop an act of terrorism with the rules to convict, they are different.
Has there ever been a treaty, law, agreement, pact, whatever that has not gone out the window immediately upon the discovery that there is BIG money to had? Discuss all you guys want. While space (and Antartica) is unprofitable, you get to play. Once BIG profit enters the picture, you will no longer be a player. This is the law of reality. Have fun.
In general, any space agency will likely seek approval from the U.N. and any space-faring nation prior to creating a settlement or base on the moon or Mars. While seeking such approval, what ever laws or treaties currently exist will be thrown out.
It is my opinion that the moon and Mars are free space. No property owner or country can claim ownership at this point. Think of it as a the new colony(ies).
The main thing though is that we are many years away from extra-plantary settlement, so NASA and the world have plenty of time to sort these ideals out.
We should pause and think what would happen to the life (intelligent or otherwise) that might be native to the planets that we colonize. Just look at how Europeans fucked up the Americas almost totally destroying the native culture and peoples in the process. Look at what happened in Australia to the aborigines. We do not need a Space Colonialism. Let us just blow ourselfs up in this planet and call it quits.
Thahs
My country reduced CO2 emissions about 19% allready in relation to 1990 emissions. I gladly pay energy taxes for that.
Great. When you get DOWN to US levels of pollution, let us know.
I can visit ANY University in Europe FOR FREE. I gladly pay taxes for that.
So care to explain why so many students, internationally, strive to go to the top end US universities?
Besides which, if you want to start babbling like that, any kid in the state of Georgia can go to ANY college or university in the state for free (tuition wise). As long as they maintain their GPA. And that's without a cent of tax money.
that at Tianenmen square the protesters attacked the Chinese Army, and not vice versa (!),
You citate out of context.
Protesters did attack the army.
The army did attack protesters.
Both is true. (Oh shit I put the two sentences into the wrong order) Meanwhile I think I remember you are right. The students did not attack the tanks on the Tianenmen square, it was in the streets around the square. My bad that I was not precise enough in pointing that out. Seems I lost the discussion now and you are totaly right
Your narrow mindness is the problem.
Tibet 'monks' are restrikted in their work in Tibet. Especialy if they work political(not: I'm not talking about religion
Tibet citizens who are not monks can still follow their religion and even visit those monks and churches which are not subject of prosecution because the monks do not work political.
So: political working monks are prosecutred.
Religious intersted people(including monks) are not.
You simple mix up political activism with religious activism
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I would posit that the vast majority of readers of this site recognize that your claims here are simply outrageous. Whether you are lying or repeating lies told by others is left as an exercise for the reader.
As for `mix[ing] up political activism with religious activism', just what is your point? Are we supposed to say `Oh. Well if they are being tortured and jailed for their political views, not their religious views, it's ok then!' ? Really?
The UN a despotic collection of dictators except for the noble US? Yanks must already own space cos you ain't on this planet... Who's gov is sold out to oil companies? Who has politicos embroiled in murder investigations? Who's gov has almost unlimited snooping powers? Hmmm, maybe the same country that doesn't pay it's UN fees eh?
`Oh. Well if they are being tortured and jailed for their political views, not their religious views, it's ok then!' ? Really?
.... and he is free in his religion ...
No its not.
But torturing for political views does not affect religious freedom.
Hu? You still are intermixing stuff and try to lead me on the ice. Sorry, your way to discuss is wrong, seems you are a politician.
I did not talk about torturing and not if it is wrong or not, I talked about religious freedom. A totaly different topic.
If I come into a dispute with a muslime in a pub and we start a fight and I break his nose, what weas the reason? The fact that we came into a dispute? Or the fact that he was a muslime? Was it right to break his nose?
This are three questions and your answer allways is: "because he was a muslime he got broken his nose, so angel'o'sphere is an anti muslime".
As soon as I point out, "no I'm not an anti muslime, we had a dispute and it just evolved and it had happend the same way if he had been a christian", you say: "so, was it right to break his nose?"
The first question however was about his religion
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Both religious and political persecution are wrong, and both exist in China.
Why do those protective laws only apply to US citizens? If the laws are right and just, why don't they apply to any people falling under the jurisdiction of US law ?
Actually the laws nearly always cover all individuals within US territory, there are exceptions. The exceptions I am aware of tend to be related to rights you gave up in order to get into the US. For example a US citizen does not have to provide evidence that they are attending school, however a person visiting on a student visa would be required to do so.
Ah .... you start to learn, fine.
... I mean cases where political freedom was restricted by court rulings and where religious freedom was restricted by court rulings. Both cases exist in germany plentifull. IMHO the court rulings where right(those I know about), BTW. I asume you would not agree with the court rulings in the US as it would show you that FREEDOM is a matter of point of view :-)
Yes, both are wrong and both exist in China, so we agree now.
Wonderfull. I hope you start to take a lession from that for your future live.
angel'o'sphere
P.S. yes, I still believe that your GENERAL claim is wrong. Your specific claim: "it exists" is something totaly different. Its up to you as a reader to find similar cases in USA for example
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Great. When you get DOWN to US levels of pollution, let us know.
Sorry, ten or 15 years ago I did not read
Europe is BELOW US levels since decades.
So care to explain why so many students, internationally, strive to go to the top end US universities?
I do not get that, sorry.
Why not? I would also go to MIT if it would benefit me
Why do thousands of studends form foreign countries come to germany, to france, to italy, to england from all over the world?
No idea, I think they like it.
So what was your point?
FYI: my point was about a previous post where a guy claimed that the high taxes in europe would constitute less freeedom than he has in the US.
I just liked to point out that I get something back for that "reduction" in freedom what he lacks.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You may mean cases where political and religious freedom were `restricted'. I meant (and said) religious and political persecution.
The tens of thousands in the laogai (Chinese forced labor camps for political and religious dissidents) would surely argue that their freedoms have been more than `restricted'. So would the many more who have been murdered, had they only the chance.
Yesterday was the anniversary of the brutal crackdown at Tianenmen. I ask that you not dishonor the unarmed protesters murdered on that day by playing semantic games with their suffering.
You are plying the semantic games!
.... instead of accepting that you where exagerating in the first point you like to say: "angel'o'sphere if you deny 1, then you deny 2 as well and even 3 and wasn't 4 the worst sample in history?
Thats the problem and thats what leads to emoticaly heated discussions!
First you talked about "religious freedom", then you started to switch to "prosecution" then you switched over to labour camps then you bring up the Tianenmen Square masakres
I did not talk about 2, 3 and 4 in the first place, only about 1. But as you brought up 4 I dissagreed with you simplicistic view of it.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
With due respect, what are you claiming is exaggerated? The fact that there is no religious freedom in China, the fact that there is no political freedom in China, the facts of the massacre at Tianenmen, or the facts of the laogai?
I think we had it allready 10 times:
With due respect, what are you claiming is exaggerated?
THIS:
The fact that there is no religious freedom in China
is no fact. I proofed it. And you are polemic in bringing up three other topics. And you are playing with semantics by trying to proove with three other topics that you are right in this topic. But you are WRONG in this topic. Period.
Yur discussion is disshonest and it helps no one here or in China that you talk disshonest.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Or do you claim that citizens of the Soviet Union also had freedom of speech and religious freedom because the Soviet constitution promised these things?
I have posted copious documentation on the actual state of religious and political freedom in China in the thread I linked to above. I invite any readers curious about these matters to look there.
Looks like he already has the right stuff and the
rest of us need to get some !!
Space Propulsion Engine for Flying Saucer - New Physics
Rumor in Silicon Valley -
Inventor of 3D volume holographic optical storage
shopping his concept for Space Propulsion Engine
using Propellantless Mass to US and other countries.
for further look at biography background goto
http://colossalstorage.net/colossal.htm
He says he has looked at and researched the world's space agencies, aerospace
companies, universities research, and corp. research and feels very confident
knowing others technology while no one knows his.
He is working in top secret and he says no physicist or scientist he has ever studied or researched had this approach and knows his concept will work to give near light speed travel thru Galaxy with 500K/Miles per Hour to start or 138 miles/sec. Nasa fastest time are 25,000 mile/hr or 3.9 miles/sec
he says it is a mankind first concept !!
I have posted copious documentation on the actual state of religious and political freedom in China in the thread I linked to above. I invite any readers curious about these matters to look there.
You only provided links to single cases.
And the conclusion that a single case shows that your general argument is valid, that conclusion is wrong.
You can not generalize from a singel case to all cases. You also can not generalize from 100 singel cases to all cases.
Thats the point. But I give up now as you obviously are not able to follow a simple argument.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Well, as they say on TV, `we report, you decide'. I certainly welcome the readers of this thread to look at the only evidence you have provided (a few lines from China's constitution), and at the evidence I have provided (links to hundreds of individuals persecuted by the Chinese government and hundreds of instances of oppressive policies of the Chinese government), and make up their own minds.