NationStates Jolt Archive

Only in the beginning; once sufficient infrastructure is developed, it will actually be quite comfortable.

perhaps in the distant future.

far too late for it to be any use to US.

What gets me about this thread is not what I'd descibe as a rose colored glasses outlook about pre civilization life by the OP.

It's like someone took rose colored film and surgically attached them over his retna.

From the way he describes it, the life of pre civilization man was a bountiful adventure filled with beauty and wonder. When you got out of bed in the morning, all you needed to do was turn to your left and throw your spear and deer would jump right out in front of it for you. And if you got tired of deer, just turn to your right where the rabbits would jump right into your hands, ready to be killed, skinned, and eatten. And if a stranger happened into your lands, well, it was your obligation and your pleasure to welcome him into your home with open arms and ensure that he was fed. After all, plenty of deer for everyone.

In truth you were damned lucky if you could find food to keep your family alive, and if someone encroached on your territory, it was often a matter of you or him for survival. And if during a particularly bad time, and that cave sharing child bearing woman was eatting as much of the deer as you, well, you might just have to kill a bitch.

And of course, god help you if you get banged up on your hunt for food. THe last guy you knew who got into a tussle with a wild animal and got a cut on his arm...the whole area was red and inflamed within 2 days, the whole arm had turned black and necrotic within 7, and he was dead within 10.

huh?

are you proposing a dream world not unlike our OP?

to live on a planet, satellite or asteroid where human life does not live naturally will be a constant struggle for survival.

No you misunderstand I was joking.

Haven't you ever played the game doom? :p

(the story is that a whilst researching teleportation on mars, the dimension they travel through turns out to be hell and subsequently satanic events happen resulting in a whole lot of blood and gore.)

No you misunderstand I was joking.

Havn't you ever played the game doom? :p

no

all those game, song, and tv show references are lost on me.

perhaps in the distant future.

far too late for it to be any use to US.

You really shouldn't be so pessimistic; with enough effort, we could probably make Mars fairly livable within fifty years.

However, your apparent insinuation that this is useless because there is no immediate benefit to you is mildly offensive.

Edit: No, not fifty years. Sorry, I got distracted by something and messed up.

You really shouldn't be so pessimistic; with enough effort, we could probably make Mars fairly livable within fifty years.


Ha! Have you actually researched this stuff?

You really shouldn't be so pessimistic; with enough effort, we could probably make Mars fairly livable within fifty years.


I'd say your predictions are much more overly optimistic than they (meaning the person you quote) are overly pessimistic

You really shouldn't be so pessimistic; with enough effort, we could probably make Mars fairly livable within fifty years.

However, your apparent insinuation that this is useless because there is no immediate benefit to you is mildly offensive.

offensive? why on earth would anyone be offended that i consider the cozy habitation of mars to be impossible?

no its not really possible to make mars livable within 50 years. it MIGHT be possible to put up enough completely environmentally controlled habitats on mars to house ..... 1,000 people maybe?

that doesnt make mars livable. it would be living in a completey artificial enviroment that happens to be located on mars.

that doesnt make mars livable. it would be living in a completey artificial enviroment that happens to be located on mars.

Which could also happen to live in a number of other otherwise uninhabital places such as the moon, under water, or cleveland.

Damn! I think my brain shut itself off there for a second. Sorry about that.

Yeah, 50 years is a little too soon. But still, it's something we should pursue.

Which could also happen to live in a number of other otherwise uninhabital places such as the moon, under water, or cleveland.

yeah.

with "under cleveland" being the best location. *shudder*

Damn! I think my brain shut itself off there for a second. Sorry about that.

Yeah, 50 years is a little too soon. But still, it's something we should pursue.

no reason not to.

except for the coming total collapse of civilization that will return us all to the neolithic era.

pity that.

no reason not to.

except for the coming total collapse of civilization that will return us all to the neolithic era.

pity that.

Of course, the whole "civilization is going to collapse and there is nothing we can do about it" thing.

I guess we're all royally boned then?;)

Of course, the whole "civilization is going to collapse and there is nothing we can do about it" thing.

I guess we're all royally boned then?;)

yeah

sucks to be us

lol

Of course, the whole "civilization is going to collapse and there is nothing we can do about it" thing.

I guess we're all royally boned then?;)

Only if you love civilization. :p

So you consider humans separate from nature? I don't, but that delusion runs rampant in the civilized. And no, civilization is not natural. Is it natural to kill the thing that sustains you? No, that is insane. Civilization creates the view that humans are separate from, and can live without nature, therefore, not natural.

As I've stated before civilization's progress has come at the expense of noncivilized people, plants, animals, clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet, as well as the expense of the civilized themselves. Nature is about surviving, but like I've said before, it was every individual for themselves, as humans rarely live by themselves. Survival is a group effort. Hunter-gatherers do not like overbearing individuals or leaders, so there would be no exploitation of leaders on everyone else. Also, exploitation to survive is one thing. Exploitation to get rich is another.
HORSE SHIT. You're the one who was implying, by saying "destruction of the natural world," that it was somehow separate from civilization, and I'm the one who pointed out that humans are part of nature.

As for the point about every individual for themselves, you point out that survival is a group effort. With that, you're the one insisting that civilization is about working together; so just how is "everyone for themself" somehow a "better" approach than working together? Granted, I was the one talking about individual dignity but that was also about how different people do different things to a futher extent in capitalist civilization than in what you're proposing.

What you say about "overbearing individuals or leaders" is something a combination of capitalism and democracy tries to resist; with the collective actions in consumer choice and voter choice, the common people exert their influence to reduce or limit the power of unwanted leaders, whether within politicians or businesspeople (whom are rivals not only within their respective walks of life but between them as well, as the contrasting of communitarianism and libertarianism as approaches to the market indicates)

Also, you insist that civilization has come at the "expense" of so many things.

Plants? There's still many places where there are lots of plants, just that now there's also places where there's buildings instead. More variety this way. And then there's how plants could be considered an example of technology and aspects of pre-civilization making a good combination. Such as how this morning I was bike riding on a boardwalk around a pond, where there were sections of the boardwalk surrounded by trees (in such areas one could sometimes see squirrels jumping between them though I didn't this morning) and other sections where there were breaks in the trees for me to see the pond and across it, and in some sections of breaks in the trees you could see houses on the opposite side of the pond (I live in a small town)

I could enjoy the scenery, both of civilization and of pre-civilization, on a bike ride, something that I find less tedious than walking, because of technology. I wouldn't have to bike in the soil which would slow me down because of slight human altering of the landscape. More importantly, however, because of civilization I could do so without having it suddenly ended as a result of being mauled for being weak. Even if you were to contrast civilization with nature, the former can help one enjoy the latter more.

Animals? If you're referring to animal extinction, laws protecting endangered species are an example of civilization being used to protect them.

Clean air? What about environmental laws, an example of civilization being used to fix the problems that it supposedly created? Think back to what I said about what Soheran pointed out. And there's still places where there's reasonably clean air, and people can choose to move to them.

Clean water? On the bike ride I mentioned earlier, I remember stopping at one break in the trees to park my bike and touch the pond water, feeling how cold it was, and considering how even I like water cold, I know that water straight from ponds isn't exactly healthy to drink, what with germs in it. However, within civilization, there's treated water to drink, water that has been made by technology to ironically be cleaner than that in "nature"... and pollution isn't THAT bad, at least not everywhere... but either way civilization means we don't have to drink that water.

offensive? why on earth would anyone be offended that i consider the cozy habitation of mars to be impossible?

no its not really possible to make mars livable within 50 years. it MIGHT be possible to put up enough completely environmentally controlled habitats on mars to house ..... 1,000 people maybe?

that doesnt make mars livable. it would be living in a completey artificial enviroment that happens to be located on mars.

Actually from what I have read and will try to find the link there is something they can do. Apparently there are a few companies out there that say they can build basically a bubble over a settlement on mars. However the bubble can be made in square miles. It is clear and made of some type of high strength plastic that has multiple layers in case of rupture by a foreign object. If in fact they can do this and personally I don't see why not a small city couldn't be built. Even a large city could be built with enough "bubbles". Will look for the linky so that you can read for yourself.

Actually from what I have read and will try to find the link there is something they can do. Apparently there are a few companies out there that say they can build basically a bubble over a settlement on mars. However the bubble can be made in square miles. It is clear and made of some type of high strength plastic that has multiple layers in case of rupture by a foreign object. If in fact they can do this and personally I don't see why not a small city couldn't be built. Even a large city could be built with enough "bubbles". Will look for the linky so that you can read for yourself.

i was assuming bubbles.

but that still doesnt make mars livable. it makes it possible to live artificially on mars.

not a great life and not a real alternative to life on earth. the only reason to do it is if there are incredible raw materials on mars that justify the expense of putting up such settlements.

not a great life and not a real alternative to life on earth. the only reason to do it is if there are incredible raw materials on mars that justify the expense of putting up such settlements.

That's why asteroids are a more likely offworld colony than Mars. They continue literally incalculable quantities of raw materials. I calculated that, at current world prices, the nickel-iron deposit in a single near-Earth asteroid was worth over 1.5 quintillion dollars. There's enough of it there to meet current demand for millions of years.

That's why asteroids are a more likely offworld colony than Mars. They continue literally incalculable quantities of raw materials. I calculated that, at current world prices, the nickel-iron deposit in a single near-Earth asteroid was worth over 1.5 quintillion dollars. There's enough of it there to meet current demand for millions of years.

wow. i guess we wouldnt need more than one asteroid colony then.


i think we need artificial gravity before people can survive living on an asteroid though. bones are highly affected by loss of gravity.

That's why asteroids are a more likely offworld colony than Mars. They continue literally incalculable quantities of raw materials. I calculated that, at current world prices, the nickel-iron deposit in a single near-Earth asteroid was worth over 1.5 quintillion dollars. There's enough of it there to meet current demand for millions of years.
Wow. Too bad that doesn't matter. At all. Hope you didn't spend too much time on those calculations.

You know, as I see it, there are two opinions that can happen:

Trollgaard:
Civilisation is destroying the natural world
Civilisation is not sustainable
Civilisation is unethical in its practises

Vetalia: (I think is you, I apologise in advance if its not)
Civilisation is sustainable with technology
Civilisation can rebuild the natural world
Thus civilisation should rebuild the natural world while mindful of ethical practises
Therefore we should have more civilisation and not less.

Although I actually agree with Vetalia, he/she did a much better job than me (when I tried in with my two posts earlier) in saying that civilisation is the cure to the problems Trollgaard pointed out.

So lets play devil's advocate and take a different and no less radical standpoint.
"
Why bother with preserving natural life? Technology can keep us alive. Inequality in society just serves as an encouragement to improve. Just so long as we survive, in the most comfortable way possible, everything else can go to the dogs.

I mean why bother? Why should we give up our personal comfort and technology just so a few useless (to us) species can survive? Why risk the survival of the human race when the next climatic change comes?

You say what makes humans special, why do humans have to survive?

I'm human, therefore humans must survive! No other reason than that. Forward humanity!
"

Wow. Too bad that doesn't matter. At all. Hope you didn't spend too much time on those calculations.

Doesn't matter yet. But once it becomes economical for companies to do it, it will matter.

It was a simple multiplication problem. Take the amounts of iron and nickel and multiply them by the current price on the commodity markets, and you get a rough estimate of the value of the asteroid (it might actually be higher due to the high purity of the ore).

This entire discussion is ludicrous. The idea that "Civilization" is a single, unified construct is completely preposterous. "Modern" civilization might be called destructive or any of the other simplistic statements that were hurled by the OP, but how is the hunter-gatherer dynamic not civilization?

The entire thread seems to be suffering from this idea that hunter-gatherers and primitive, tribal humans were not "civilized" and had no society. Civilization, as I tend to define it, is best put thusly - "the sum, or current extent, of human accomplishment and spread (human civilization or global civilization)."

Arguing that hunter-gatherers had an easier, healthier life is idiotic. Mortality rates, especially among infants, were incredibly high, life expectancy was low, and human-constructed morality was weak. Survival was on a day-to-day basis, dependent entirely on herd movements, weather, and plant growth. Basic anthropology and ancient history is extremely clear in this case (if it weren't true, there would be no such thing as human migration- searching for better resources).

The entire concept of anarcho-primitivism is flawed because it 1. operates from a modern, utopian premise and 2. ignores the concept of evolution.

1. Hunter-gatherers did not live in a proverbial Arcadia where the fruits were plentiful and the herds were great. Life was difficult. Writing and art were almost nonexistent. Medicine was undeveloped. Sedentary habitation did not exist, which precluded security and comfort.

2. Humans evolve, and thusly does human culture and society. The formation of tribes, clans, and families into villages, towns, and then cities is a natural event given the exponential possibilities of human reproduction. The natural desire to procreate and ensure the survival of the genetic line is what drove early humans- to the Agricultural Revolution and to build the first cities.

I find no stock in the claims presented by the OP.

Doesn't matter yet. But once it becomes economical for companies to do it, it will matter.

So never then.

So never then.

The falling cost of space travel is making it more and more likely that it will happen at some point in the not-too-distant future.

The falling cost of space travel is making it more and more likely that it will happen at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Space travel is far from the most important concern, though it is a concern. There simply is no viable way that mankind will ever be able to live on a planet except for Earth for any period of time. Getting around the long term health risks of gravity differences alone is impossible.

Space travel is far from the most important concern, though it is a concern. There simply is no viable way that mankind will ever be able to live on a planet except for Earth for any period of time. Getting around the long term health risks of gravity differences alone is impossible.

At the present, yes. There is no viable way. However, don't forget that a mere 500 years ago people still believed the Earth was flat and that drilling a hole in the head was an adequate way of curing headaches. I have faith that new technology and information will be discovered that makes things we consider impossible now less impossible in the future.

Space travel is far from the most important concern, though it is a concern. There simply is no viable way that mankind will ever be able to live on a planet except for Earth for any period of time. Getting around the long term health risks of gravity differences alone is impossible.

No, it really isn't. Artificial gravity is entirely possible, if highly expensive and impractical at present. And, of course, it's also true that there are ways of getting around those long term risks even without artificial gravity.

but how is the hunter-gatherer dynamic not civilization?

by definition. for example, wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#What_characterizes_civilization):

Everyone lives in a society and a culture, but not everyone lives in a civilization. Historically, civilizations have shared some or all of the following traits (some of these were suggested by V. Gordon Childe):

* Settlement from nomadic life meant possessions could be accumulated, land could be individually owned. Laws, the state and armies were developed to protect possessions and inequality.
* Intensive agricultural techniques, such as the use of human power, crop rotation, and irrigation. This has enabled farmers to produce a surplus of food that is not necessary for their own subsistence.
* A significant portion of the population that does not devote most of its time to producing food. This permits a division of labor. Those who do not occupy their time in producing food may instead focus their efforts in other fields, such as industry, war, science or religion. This is possible because of the food surplus described above.
* The gathering of some of these non-food producers into permanent settlements, called cities.
* A form of social organization. This can be a chiefdom, in which the chieftain of one noble family or clan rules the people; or a state society, in which the ruling class is supported by a government or bureaucracy. Political power is concentrated in the cities.
* The institutionalized control of food by the ruling class, government or bureaucracy.
* The establishment of complex, formal social institutions such as organized religion and education, as opposed to the less formal traditions of other societies.
* Development of complex forms of economic exchange. This includes the expansion of trade and may lead to the creation of money and markets.
* The accumulation of more material possessions than in simpler societies.
* Development of new technologies by people who are not busy producing food. In many early civilizations, metallurgy was an important advancement.
* Advanced development of the arts, especially writing.

by definition. for example, wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#What_characterizes_civilization):

Okeedokee. I maintain, though, that hunter-gatherer societies are still a primitive form of civilization.

* Settlement from nomadic life meant possessions could be accumulated, land could be individually owned. Laws, the state and armies were developed to protect possessions and inequality.
Correct.
* Intensive agricultural techniques, such as the use of human power, crop rotation, and irrigation. This has enabled farmers to produce a surplus of food that is not necessary for their own subsistence.
Correct.
* A significant portion of the population that does not devote most of its time to producing food. This permits a division of labor. Those who do not occupy their time in producing food may instead focus their efforts in other fields, such as industry, war, science or religion. This is possible because of the food surplus described above.
This, I think, is not correct. Even nomadic societies have divisions of labor, mostly based on gender and age- the women weave and sew, etc., the men hunt, and the elders educate and become "venerable." Science and industry, yes, but war and religion are basic functions of humanity, and only tied tentatively to the settling of humanity.
* The gathering of some of these non-food producers into permanent settlements, called cities.
Correct, but only partially.
* A form of social organization. This can be a chiefdom, in which the chieftain of one noble family or clan rules the people; or a state society, in which the ruling class is supported by a government or bureaucracy. Political power is concentrated in the cities.
Incorrect, especially in the form of chiefdom and clans. Social organization is inherent to animals in general.
* The institutionalized control of food by the ruling class, government or bureaucracy.
This is just Marxist bullshit, and in no way related to the concept of "civilization."
* The establishment of complex, formal social institutions such as organized religion and education, as opposed to the less formal traditions of other societies.
Again, bullshit. Social institutions aren't "established," they form. Evolution.
* Development of complex forms of economic exchange. This includes the expansion of trade and may lead to the creation of money and markets.
Correct.
* The accumulation of more material possessions than in simpler societies.
Cause/effect fallacy.
* Development of new technologies by people who are not busy producing food. In many early civilizations, metallurgy was an important advancement.
Makes my point for me.
* Advanced development of the arts, especially writing.
Correct.

Long story short, all of these correct attributes of a 'civilization' are the logical evolutionary developments of a primitive society. The very article suggests that the items described above are not indicative of civilizations on the whole, but rather facets that some societies have shared. Early humans were not lone wolves devoted entirely to the hunt- though their life did focus largely on survival and procreation. Humans were and are complex creatures that developed and evolved newer and better ways to supply their needs.