Just a little strange. I wonder why they don't have space Scientologists in this show?
-
kelzan — 10 years ago(January 01, 2016 03:53 PM)
It does raise an interesting topic about interstellar travel. Different groups with religions and/or ideologies that are very small in the world's population, or not as influential as they'd like to be, would almost certainly use interstellar travel if it ever becomes possible to set up a world where their's is the dominant or only belief whether it is Mormons, fundamentalist Christians, or other religions, or for that matter Libertarians or Communists.
They'd have the chance to found a world where they make the rules. -
CigarDoug — 9 years ago(June 17, 2016 01:06 PM)
whether it is Mormons, fundamentalist Christians, or other religions, or for that matter Libertarians or Communists.
Not Communists. Communism is a parasite, it requires a thriving capitalist system to leech off of. Communists don't build communities or factories or economies, they seize existing ones and destroy them. -
CigarDoug — 9 years ago(November 10, 2016 09:36 AM)
Don't be stupid. Stupid
Stupid people lob insults. Intelligent people refute by logic and example.
Not Communists. Communism is a parasite, it requires a thriving capitalist system to leech off of. Communists don't build communities or factories or economies, they seize existing ones and destroy them.
What is inaccurate about what I said here? How well off are the poor in Venezuela? They are sitting on the richest oil reserves in South America. How well off are the poor in North Korea?
Examples, please, where your utopia is working. -
darythg — 9 years ago(November 24, 2016 11:35 AM)
Look at your first comment. What could i do other than lob insults. It had no point to it.
North Korea Communist. Please educate yourself.
Your examples are beep Cuba could have done it perhaps had it not been attacked and worked against by a global super power. otherwise look at the catolonian republic.
Do remember that communism isn't about a big state. The point of communism is to liberate yourself from the state. And if you actually took your time to read up on these things you might not just Regurgitate American propaganda(How well are you guys doing anyway.) Capitalism is like pissing your pants when it is cold. -
darythg — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 02:06 AM)
There was no discussion to begin with. You clearly dont know what you are talking about otherwise you would have some kind of counterargument. But you dont because you are ignorant of the topic. I can understand why you wont continue this. I too would be embarrassed if I had made those earlier statements you did.
Good luck with being a narrow minded idiot -
Dejay — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 07:28 PM)
As a historical example, look at what Stalin did during WWII. He build an incredible industrial base in no time to fuel the war machine to defeat the nazi's.
Another would be that the USSR managed to compete with the US in space exploration. Today it's them that supply the rockets to shoot satellites into space.
State socialism is imho probably less efficient than Capitalism, but there are inefficiencies everywhere. But there are also smart, industrious people everywhere.
I believe state socialism doesn't work (communism is a money-less utopia never realized, never never has been a communist country - basically star trek). State socialism concentrates not just all political power, but also all economic power which is a big problem.
But in the future new socialist economic frameworks could solve this. For example we now have the internet to provide feedback to markets and AI software and that alone could help regulate markets better and more efficient than capitalism can. Hopefully. Because the mega corporations didn't work out so well in the show
-
netsez00 — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 09:57 PM)
As a historical example, look at what Stalin did during WWII. He build an incredible industrial base in no time to fuel the war machine to defeat the nazi's.
Another would be that the USSR managed to compete with the US in space exploration. Today it's them that supply the rockets to shoot satellites into space
Sure, but eventually you run out of other people's money -
netsez00 — 9 years ago(February 09, 2017 07:28 AM)
A state can generate as much money as it wants. A single keystroke can magically create a million or 10 billion or a few trillion dollars. It's only a social construct we agree upon.
True, but it is far more than a social construct. Doing that has serious economic consequences. -
anjansons — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 02:40 PM)
As a historical example, look at what Stalin did during WWII. He build an incredible industrial base in no time to fuel the war machine to defeat the nazi's.
Yeah because he both had the people and natural resources for that
Another would be that the USSR managed to compete with the US in space exploration. Today it's them that supply the rockets to shoot satellites into space.
Because they had a ton of Nazi research in rocketry after the war, a lot of people and natural resources. Today rockets are made both by US, European Union, Japan, China, private companies - SpaceX etc. to shoot satellites in space. I guess you talked about sending astronauts to space which is done only by Russia and China (based on Russian tech) nowadays as it is cheaper for NASA to put them on Russian rockets than to build their own solution.
State socialism is great at building initial infrastructure - roads, energy projects, railways, factories, because you do not need to take into account public opinion, rentability etc. In many cases it is good, because general public is dumb as bricks and often do not know what they want (I know of several really good projects that were axed because of people using ridiculous arguments to not get them made - you can just look at the state of public transport and high speed rail in USA vs China). But any socialism stifles innovation and growth, because if you make all people equal and give them equal salaries, what's the point of working hard and moving up in life. In Soviet Union if you were an inventor, you did not get a patent and were set for life with money you made. You got maybe half a month's salary, a pat on the back and honour to be called "innovator" and that's all. And maybe you worked 10 years on such a project. Plus, Soviet obsession with giving jobs to every person meant creating terrible inefficiencies and too many people employed everywhere, plus a part of these people were those who in a welfare state would sit on benefits and who do not want to work so they did not work in Soviet Union too, they drank vodka each day pretending to be doing something - which made other people around them also work less, as they did not see the point- they got the same salary for hard work as the guy who did nothing. It is in no way a great system if we want to see progress. People are not as altruistic as in Star Trek, they mainly do things because they want more money to buy things which are exclusive. In Soviet system you a) can't make a lot of money, lot more than others and b) there are no (very few) exclusive items So it's a lose-lose. It is a system that actively discourages people from striving to have better life than others and it would sort of be ok if that also did not mean that it discourages people from general progress. -
Dejay — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 12:51 AM)
Yeah because he both had the people and natural resources for that
So? You're moving the goal post with this and the rocket program. You could say the same things about the US. The fact is the USSR did it with their state socialism. Because even under the inefficiencies of central planning in state socialism people were idealistic and wanted to create, wanted to succeed.
I'm agreeing with you that they had terrible inefficiencies, but I think your arguments are tinted by propaganda. It's something I learned as a kid too, because you get the same reward, you won't put in more work. But this is terrible propaganda and stupid too - people WANT to work. We have a desire to be useful, to be altruistic as well. This is a fact. Not that you are wrong, but it's a too simple truth, that it's only due to equal salaries.
In Soviet Union if you were an inventor, you did not get a patent and were set for life
Most patents now don't belong to the inventor but are traded as capital. And the capital does not belong to the workers or inventors. It's actually an argument in the opposite direction, that despite no reward so many smart people in the USSR continued to do research.
Researchers do it for science and for fame and glory
People are not as altruistic as in Star Trek, they mainly do things because they want more money to buy things which are exclusive.
This is the religion of psychopaths - everyone only does what benefits himself. Well or his family. Or maybe his country? There are tons of jobs like doctors or teachers or artists or social workers who don't do these jobs for the money, but because they they see them as their calling, as their contribution "to the tribe".
I'd love to read an impartial analysis of the inefficiencies in the USSR and other socialist countries. Because, just like in star trek, we ARE heading into a future where robotics and automation and software can do most of the work. We'll be faced with a growing portion of the population that does not need to work, and who's work will always be more expensive than a robot. So we'll HAVE to revisit some ideas in communism, and how to create jobs that are not profit based but still benefit society. -
Korios — 10 years ago(January 06, 2016 03:27 PM)
A generation ship makes sense only if, by using gas spectroscopy and some very powerful telescopes, a habitable planet is detected within a range of 15 to 20 light years. Otherwise they will travel blind. Perhaps the closest habitable planet is 50 or 100 light years away, aka much farther away than what their ship, their resources and their sanity can handle.
30 billion? Wow.. It has been estimated that the Earth can handle up to 12 billion people, with all the crop lands maxed out. After that the $hit will hit the fan big time.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching. -
BlackJAC — 10 years ago(January 31, 2016 09:38 AM)
The website says they're headed for Tau Ceti, which is 12 LY out.
As for the food, the books also say that Jupiter's moon of Ganymede is a farm. Plus who knows what they've got going on on the Moon and other space stations; I know that they grow stuff in tanks on both Ceres and Eros.
Your replies will be graded and possibly used as material in future projects. -
thepolarised — 9 years ago(April 05, 2016 02:31 AM)
Well if you have read the book, what happens to the Nauvoo is kind of ironic. It's not funny when you think about how those Mormons must have felt as to what happen yet it kind of is.
And it's not strange at all they are the also the religion that believes in planets of beings etc. etc. and going there. Plenty of sci-fi have exclusively religious colonies it what they likely do if they can get enough money for an interstellar ship, and the Mormons have a lot of money.
I thought it was a perfect fit. I assumed they were planning on deorbiting the ship to destroy it's technology after settling on Earth V2 anyway.
Extremely ironic how the Nauvoo plot plays out for them, and yes I found it funny too. Although from the ominous hints we've seen at what's coming, being stashed away 'off the grid' probably would have been a better option for them.
As for the food, the books also say that Jupiter's moon of Ganymede is a farm. Plus who knows what they've got going on on the Moon and other space stations; I know that they grow stuff in tanks on both Ceres and Eros.
*was a farm -
jclarke@attglobal.net — 9 years ago(April 05, 2016 07:49 PM)
I thought it was a perfect fit. I assumed they were planning on deorbiting the ship to destroy it's technology after settling on Earth V2 anyway.
Why would they do that? The Mormons are
good
at technology and they like it. Are you making the assumption that every religious person wants to ban technology? If so you need to get out more. -
Madeline5 — 9 years ago(April 09, 2016 07:09 AM)
There's some interesting info about a celestial object mentioned in the book of Abraham: Kolob.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob
"Kolob is a star or planet described in Mormon scripture. Reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, a work that is traditionally held by adherents of the Mormon faith as having been translated from an Egyptian papyrus scroll by Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. According to this work, Kolob is the heavenly body nearest to the throne of God.While the Book of Abraham refers to Kolob as a "star", it also refers to planets as "stars", and therefore, some Mormon commentators consider Kolob to be a planet.
Whether the series or books makes any connections to that name, belief or not remains to be seen.
As is, it's an interesting part of the story. -
thepolarised — 9 years ago(April 17, 2016 04:22 AM)
Why would they do that? The Mormons are good at technology and they like it. Are you making the assumption that every religious person wants to ban technology? If so you need to get out more.
Read the books and find out what their motivations and goals are. My comments were about a fictional group in a fictional story and you still manage to get upset over them. Amazing.