Does Light Lag Guarantee that Communism can Never Happen? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14987272
SolarCross wrote:I don't think you are a reliable witness given you tendency towards delusions.


To anyone who gives a shit, I have SolarCross's most useful thread to date (which was still pointless) :lol:

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=173242

So the supporter of Science and anti Creationist wanted to be unheathened? What a patriot to the sciences he is. :lol:

Not true. Ultimately humans need energy, materials and knowledge, from which all else can be produced, all of which can be produced and obtained beyond earth and without the earth.


What energy are you thinking of harnessing in the depths of space? Even light is remote away from stars. Although the true challenge is recreating the Earths ecosystem on another planet and over coming the limitations of the Human body on there too. Then there is oxygen and finding lots of it to transport it to any planet that doesn't have any (much). Although finding a sustainable power source is perhaps doable if Fusion is possible, however even the possibility of that is still questionable today.

You don't even know what capitalism is.


Get it straight, you don't. You confuse it with trade. You have done that since forever because you are ignorant. You have got to the stage now you have to rely on an Ancap to understand what little you do know because their Capitalism isn't the established version either.
#14987287
B0ycey wrote:To anyone who gives a shit, I have SolarCross's most useful thread to date (which was still pointless) :lol:

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=173242

So the supporter of Science and anti Creationist wanted to be unheathened? What a patriot to the sciences he is. :lol:

Well I am still heathen and I was, am and always will be pro science. I don't know that Christianity is necessarily anti-science despite some papal policies in the past.

B0ycey wrote:What energy are you thinking of harnessing in the depths of space? Even light is remote away from stars. Although the true challenge is recreating the Earths ecosystem on another planet and over coming the limitations of the Human body on there too. Then there is oxygen and finding lots of it to transport it to any planet that doesn't have any (much). Although finding a sustainable power source is perhaps doable if Fusion is possible, however even the possibility of that is still questionable today.


Stars are the primary source of energy and there is far more of that available outside of earth. Artificial blackholes, called Kugelblitz blackholes, might be used to power interstellar voyages though that isn't the only way. Theoretically blackholes can also be used to power civilizations even after all the stars in the universe have burnt out. We don't really need to make fusion work on a small scale (it already works on a large scale as a star is literally a natural fusion engine) though it would be handy. There are other sources of energy but stellar energy is quite enough for well into the far future.

Oxygen is actually rather abundant in the universe though as it is a very reactive element it is usually found bound to something else such as hydrogen to make water (that is what the O stands for in H2O). There is easily enough oxygen in our solar system for trillions of times more people than currently exist.

Recreating earth's ecology is not hard in artificial habitats like o'neil cylinders though you don't need to do it and you probably shouldn't because space farms will be more efficient if they are optimised for production rather than whatever sentimentalism you want to do.

B0ycey wrote:Get it straight, you don't. You confuse it with trade. You have done that since forever because you are ignorant. You have got to the stage now you have to rely on an Ancap to understand what little you do know because their Capitalism isn't the established version either.

Nope, you are ignorant one and you do it on purpose.
Last edited by SolarCross on 10 Feb 2019 20:51, edited 1 time in total.
#14987300
@B0ycey Not sure what @SolarCross is talking about. He doesn't seem to understand how space acts upon biological organisms. Also, we're able to entertain superluminal communication, but it will be developed and used here on Earth before we deploy it out there. Consider China’s quantum satellite (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06 ... oogle.com/), superluminal communication will most likely be established via quantum nonlocality. I brought up cybernetics (the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things.), because it is the only transdisciplinary field of research that can successfully merge all the intelligent systems humans will need to colonize space. Cybernetics, game theory, and control theory, offer multi-domain and mosaic warfare strategies for perception and physical systems management.

The militarization of space is inevitable. Historically, all new forms of communications tech come from military R&D. The military has a big advantage because it can classify its patents.

Again, private corporations and Gov use cybernetics to compete. Eventually, all private corporations and Gov will behave the same way in order to remain competitive. This endless power struggle will lead to global scientific totalitarianism. Space exploration will be an extension of the struggle.

Side note: Luxembourg's asteroid mining law takes effect August 1st
It's the first of its kind in Europe.


https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/30/lux ... -august-1/
#14987301
SolarCross wrote:Stars are the principle source of energy and there is far more of that available outside of earth. Artificial blackholes, called Kugelblitz blackholes, might be used to power interstellar voyages though that isn't the only way. Theoretically blackholes can also be used to power civilizations even after all the stars in the universe have burnt out. We don't really need to make fusion work (it already works on a large scale as a star is literally a natural fusion engine) on a small scale though it would be handy. There are other sources of energy but stellar energy is quite enough for well into the far future.

Oxygen is actually rather abundant in the universe though as it is a very reactive element it is usually found bound to something else such as hydrogen to make water (that is what the O stands for in H2O). There is easily enough oxygen in our solar system for trillions of times more people than currently exist.

Recreating earth's ecology is not hard in artificial habitats like o'neil cylinders though you don't need to do it and you probably shouldn't because space farms will be more efficient if they are optimised for production rather than whatever sentimentalism you want to do.


Being that the nearest star from us (excluding the Sun) is just the 4 light years away I can see how you think we will harness their energy in Interstellar space flight. :lol:

And blackholes? WTF. Do you think Humans will be able to get close to one to harness it's power? Did you watch The Force Awakens yesterday for your science updates or something?

Although Oxygen is abundant, I was talking about places that don't have much. Although even if you have a source of oxygen in a complex molecule it is difficult to extract FYI. But I suppose if ice is prevalent on the planet (or if you are lucky water) I suppose you have a point.

The rest of your comments are just words. They are concepts not reality. There are challenges in making these a reality in sustaining life and I suspect are not even close to being profitable in terms of R&D and then put into practice ever. If you look at the ISS and its limitations compared to cost and you think that you words have some form of value. Don't be absurd. They are the same as me saying Time travel is possible because if we move fast enough we can distort time. Words are not actions. Colonisation has and will have limitations. It will be for a few individuals and not the masses. And we are constrained to our immediate part of space, because another thing you have neglected to consider - radiation.
#14987309
B0ycey wrote:Being that the nearest star from us (excluding the Sun) is just the 4 light years away I can see how you think we will harness their energy in Interstellar space flight. :lol:


One way to power interstellar flight is to use a directed stellar beam contrived using a dyson swarm. Most of the energy needed for interstellar flight is in the acceleration at the start and the deceleration at the end. Since one is traveling from one star to another those energy sources actually exist where one needs them most.

B0ycey wrote:And blackholes? WTF. Do you think Humans will be able to get close to one to harness it's power? Did you watch The Force Awakens yesterday for your science updates or something?

Again you are speaking from ignorance. Making blackholes is not even a science problem at this point but an engineering one. We might never do it on a commercial scale for centuries from now but it is possible and we could do it. A few centuries is almost no time at all when you consider the lifespan of the universe till now.

B0ycey wrote:Although Oxygen is abundant, I was talking about places that don't have much. Although even if you have a source of oxygen in a complex molecule it is difficult to extract FYI. But I suppose if ice is prevalent on the planet (or if you are lucky water) I suppose you have a point.

I would say most people will be living in artificial habitats rather than planets which are rather unsuitable in general due to either having not enough mass, too much or spinning too fast or too slow. But either way delivering unlimited quantities of water (and thus oxygen) to a planet or habitat is virtually trivial, you just need a mass driver and some ice. The Oort cloud alone has plenty of ice.

B0ycey wrote:The rest of your comments are just words. They are concepts not reality. There are challenges in making these a reality in sustaining life and I suspect are not even close to being profitable in terms of R&D and then put into practice ever. If you look at the ISS and its limitations compared to cost and you think that you words have some form of value. Don't be absurd. They are the same as me saying Time travel is possible because if we move fast enough we can distort time. Words are not actions. Colonisation has and will have limitations. It will be for a few individuals and not the masses. And we are constrained to our immediate part of space, because another thing you have neglected to consider - radiation.


Everything starts a concept but all these concepts rely on known science and thus are completely achievable. So no it is not like saying time travel into the past is possible, because that relies on science we don't have yet and is probably impossible (though "time travel" into the future obviously is possible as we are all doing it right now :D ).

Which radiation? There are many different kinds and they all have the uses as well as their hazards.
#14987315
Ignoring the limitations of the Human body which you keep on skipping over for your futurist concepts that may or may not work in the future, if we assume that these things you envision are ever possible it terms of getting out what we put in (1st law), you still need to put in the factor of Capitalism - your threads topic. You think that exploration of space is going to ever be profitable in terms of colonising planets over robots and selling the shit you mine back on Earth to people instead of a galactic trading bloc where we live everywhere? Only a universal social project could even make colonisation of (perhaps) the solar system a reality (which I doubt because of the limitations of the Human body) and capitalism couldn't even be a factor if we all live on ships because we would have to cooperate to keep the thing running and landowners and the means of production would be limited to the ships owners (the state - ie Socialism).

Oh and any type of radiation is bad for us BTW.
#14987321
B0ycey wrote:Ignoring the limitations of the Human body which you keep on skipping over for your futurist concepts that may or may not work in the future, if we assume that these things you envision are ever possible it terms of getting out what we put in (1st law), you still need to put in the factor of Capitalism - your threads topic.

No one is ignoring the "limitations of the human body", this is actually pretty well understood at this point, you just don't know any science. All you have is some primitivist superstition clouding your reason. FYI cameras don't steal your soul either.

B0ycey wrote: You think that exploration of space is going to ever be profitable in terms of colonising planets over robots and selling the shit you mine back on Earth to people instead of a galactic trading bloc where we live everywhere? Only a universal social project could even make colonisation of (perhaps) the solar system a reality (which I doubt because of the limitations of the Human body) and capitalism couldn't even be a factor if we all live on ships because we would have to cooperate to keep the thing running and landowners and the means of production would be limited to the ships owners (the state - ie Socialism).

Communism is a fail: it is fail in the past, it is a fail now and it will always be a fail, so just shut up about your stupid fetish for nonsense and lies. You can't comment on capitalism at all because you don't even know what the word means. We can't have a conversation until you choose to start speaking real english instead faux marxist-fundie garbage jargon.

B0ycey wrote:Oh and any type of radiation is bad for us BTW.

And good, try staying alive without electro-magnetic radiation of wavelengths between 380 and 740 nanometres, everything in moderation :lol: .
#14987323
SolarCross wrote:No one is ignoring the "limitations of the human body", this is actually pretty well understood at this point, you just don't know any science. All you have is some primitivist superstition clouding your reason. FYI cameras don't steal your soul either.


Well you are. :lol:

I have mentioned it a few times already and all I get is bollocks about futurist concepts of power sources for ships. Fuel is not even the major impact of space travel limitations - even though it is still a factor in why we haven't yet made human rockets to Mars I might add. It is the limitations of the Human body that is the reason why colonisation of the Galaxy is a mere pipe dream. Has that sunk in yet? :roll:

Communism is a fail: it is fail in the past, it is a fail now and it will always be a fail, so just shut up about your stupid fetish for nonsense and lies. You can't comment on capitalism at all because you don't even know what the word means. We can't have a conversation until you choose to start speaking real english instead faux-marxist fundie garbage jargon.


Well I know it is more than trade - your confusion. I remember you once said two tribes trading commodities are Capitalists. Capitalism is private ownership and the means of production for profit. You have been sucking VSs dick too long and just accept his feudal Capitalism as Capitalism and yet you still can't align your views with his correctly. Explains why POD owns your ass in the other thread actually.

And good, try staying alive without electro-magnetic radiation of wavelengths between 380 and 740 nanometres, everything in moderation :lol: .


:lol:

Rookie mistake... :lol:

Lets get this straight, radiation and the levels it is at that are on Earth is vital for our survival? So much for being independent from Earth.

Nonetheless apart from being wrong, that still doesn't mean that the radiation is safe. It just means the levels we have on Earth are not high enough to kill us. Although the "Van Allen Belt" might be something to look up now so you are not ignorant the next time you write bollocks my direction. :lol:
#14987324
B0ycey wrote:Well you are. :lol:

I have mentioned it a few times already and all I get is bollocks about futurist concepts of power sources for ships. Fuel is not even the major impact of space travel limitations - even though it is still a factor in why we haven't yet made human rockets to Mars I might add. It is the limitations of the Human body that is the reason why colonisation of the Galaxy is a mere pipe dream. Has that sunk in yet? :roll:

You are wrong and determined to remain wrong. Fine carry on and go back to cringing in fear at the sight of jumbo jets and other magic.

B0ycey wrote:Well I know it is more than trade - your confusion. I remember you once said two tribes trading commodities are Capitalists. Capitalism is private ownership and the means of production for profit. You have been sucking VSs dick too long and just accept his feudal Capitalism as Capitalism and yet you still can't align your views with his correctly. Explains why POD owns your ass in the other thread actually.

You know nothing and everything you think you know is factually wrong, which is just the way you like it.


B0ycey wrote::lol:

Rookie mistake... :lol:

Lol you don't realise the daylight on earth comes from the Sun. Noemon Edit: Rule 2
#14987327
You call that a rebuttal? :lol:

You're wrong. You're wrong. Care to explain why?

In fact don't bother. This thread is just plain bollocks and ignorance. For some reason you think Humans will be slumming it out on Wall-E ships on the dime of the Capitalists and that because you think this is possible and that space does not have an impact on our bodies that guarantees that Communism will never happen. Where the fuck is the correlation to think such ignorance? Whether Communism is or is not possible will not dependent on interstellar travel. That is a fuckin' certainty.
#14987329
B0ycey wrote:You call that a rebuttal? :lol:

You're wrong. You're wrong. Care to explain why?

In fact don't bother. This thread is just plain bollocks and ignorance. For some reason you think Humans will be slumming it out on Wall-E ships on the dime of the Capitalists and that because you think this is possible and that space does not have an impact on our bodies that guarantees that Communism will never happen. Where the fuck is the correlation to think such ignorance? Whether Communism is or is not possible will not dependent on interstellar travel. That is a fuckin' certainty.


Noemon Edit: Rule 2
#14987442
SolarCross wrote:Yes all our spaceships could be powered by handwavium or even magic.


UFOlogist T. Morrison believes gravitational field propulsion is the way to go, eventully. It's naive to think our current understanding is the last word.

Even earth, on which we spent all our evolutionary history adapting to it, is far from ideal when so much of its surface is desert, ocean, tundra and icescape.


At least you don't need a spacesuit....

If you don't like space stations then you will have to stay home, because the reality is that space colonisation and even terraforming can't be done without them.


Probably but in the future humans as we now know them may be replaced by beings specially engineered to do certain tasks, without qualm or incentive.


Perhaps but our own galaxy is very clearly wild still.


We can't be sure. For years some researchers have thought the best way to find ET is by detecting his radio transmissions. What a failure of imagination, to think our means of communication are still prevalent among more advanced systems. Not surprisingly, the "silence" supposedly indicating we are alone contrasts sharply with a plethora of UFO sightings.


Wishful thinking on your part, you are practically indulging in magical thinking. Which begs the question why? It should be a relief to know that totalitarianism is not viable. The one thing that the 20th century taught us is that totalitarianism is stupid and shit.


In the future, machines, AI and artificial beings could very well proliferate. Even flawed, past totalitarianism achieved great things in its heyday, and with better technology it can do way more.

The pendulum swings back and forth on that one.


The general trend has been for more government. Even presidents like Reagan didn't change things at all.


The lack of public support is exactly because the missions were not producing outputs more valuable than the inputs. They went all that way and just came back with a little bag of rocks and some holiday snaps, then they did it again and again and again. The first time was a wow because no one had done it before but every subsequent mission was pointless.


No, it increased scientific understanding of the moon and by extension the solar system (basic research to better understand a celestial object must precede any effort to utilize it). It is absurd to think that a real space effort--building factories and bases on the moon--would have greater public support, because the cost would've been infinitely greater and public resistance greater to the same degree....Of course, if private enterprise wanted to go ahead with its own money it could've tried anytime in the last half century, but didn't.....
Only an authoritarian government can make it happen.


Government officials smoke too, and drink booze and have every other human foible and vice. Capitalism is all about giving people what they want, and what people want after survival and family and ambition is pleasure. Your complaint is with human nature not capitalism. In the USSR they had no food to eat but somehow found resources to get smashed on vodka and meth still.


Adolf didn't smoke, drink or even have sex. Soviet officials did, but their system was still sacrificial. In the future machines may do more of the work, so it'll be easier. :)


It is early days yet. If the past will be like the future then we will be stuck with pointless billion dollar trips to get small bags of rocks and holiday snaps and space colonisation will go nowhere. If space colonisation is to become a self-reinforcing feedback loop then it will have to be the private sector doing the bulk of the work. The 20th century space race was in hindsight premature and mostly pointless and this is why those subject to market discipline did not touch it. In the 21st century the technology will approach the point where it is possible to do missions which produce outputs more valuable than the inputs and then those subject to market discipline will take over and produce the real space race on a scale you can't even begin to imagine. And we should hope that will be so because left to government alone it will not happen.


It's naive to think those for whom self aggrandizement is everything will do the bulk of the work. Neither corporations nor people in general will voluntarily make the enormous sacrifices essential for building a lot of infrastructure in space. Inevitably it'll be extremely costly, just like industrialization on earth itself. Even in the US, the emphasis on investment over consumption meant deprivation for many people and I doubt it's possible now under democracy, or as long as it lasts.


You sound as crazily anti-human as any commie. I don't wish to talk to you any further, you don't belong in civilised society.


As you like it, I see you have enough detractors around here as it is. :lol:
#14987524
starman2003 wrote:UFOlogist T. Morrison believes gravitational field propulsion is the way to go, eventully. It's naive to think our current understanding is the last word.

Yeah I don't think ufologists are going to beat out physicists in the field of designing new propulsion methods. And whatever ufos are using to deliver proctology exams to random hicks still isn't going to give you faster than light. If FTL is possible then it only makes the fermi paradox even more paradoxical because it would shorten the colonisation period to virtually nothing. It also means time travel is possible which means technological civilisations should not just be able to colonise the universe in an virtual instant but they could complete the colonisation even before they started to exist! It isn't just the general relativity that says no to FTL, so also says the fermi paradox.

starman2003 wrote:Probably but in the future humans as we now know them may be replaced by beings specially engineered to do certain tasks, without qualm or incentive.

Slavery is an old favourite, I don't doubt it will come back, but the problem for totalitarianism is not that you can't make some engineered slaves but that can't make everyone engineered slaves.

starman2003 wrote:We can't be sure. For years some researchers have thought the best way to find ET is by detecting his radio transmissions. What a failure of imagination, to think our means of communication are still prevalent among more advanced systems. Not surprisingly, the "silence" supposedly indicating we are alone contrasts sharply with a plethora of UFO sightings.

It isn't just the lack of radio traffic it is the lack of any large scale technology, such as dyson swarms or matrioska brains. Even if FTL is possible it is a hard problem relying on basically magical science but dyson swarms are actually something anyone can do and anyone should want to do. UFOs don't make sense at all because it suggests interstellar civilisations would rather mutilate earth cows, buzz fighter planes and anally probe hill billies rather than do anything substantial with their technology. The pilots of ufos appear to be degenerate idiots. The fermi paradox doesn't care if some aliens are idiots but we can't assume they all are.

starman2003 wrote:In the future, machines, AI and artificial beings could very well proliferate. Even flawed, past totalitarianism achieved great things in its heyday, and with better technology it can do way more.

You won't be able to trap everyone and anyone you can't trap will grow stronger than you and will eventually crush you.

starman2003 wrote:The general trend has been for more government. Even presidents like Reagan didn't change things at all.

Yet the govs don't do anything and the private sector does everything. Waste vs productivity just as I said.

starman2003 wrote:No, it increased scientific understanding of the moon and by extension the solar system (basic research to better understand a celestial object must precede any effort to utilize it). It is absurd to think that a real space effort--building factories and bases on the moon--would have greater public support, because the cost would've been infinitely greater and public resistance greater to the same degree....Of course, if private enterprise wanted to go ahead with its own money it could've tried anytime in the last half century, but didn't.....
Only an authoritarian government can make it happen.

Private enterprise will go when it makes sense to go. While earthbound resources, mines and real estate are sufficient and the technology does not yet exist to traverse the gravity well economically then they won't go and they shouldn't because that would be stupid. While the human population continues to grow and its technology increase that will change, probably this century.

A totalitarian government wouldn't want to because they will fear losing control, the further a colony is the more independent it can and must be because light lag gets worse the further you go. Science nerd Korolev basically used his big brain to scam the USSR's retarded policy drones into funding him by playing on their vanity but that could only work while those officials remained ignorant of physics and the scale of the projects were relatively small. Punting up a dog into LEO is no threat to the kremlin and they might even have allowed a moonbase as it would be only lightseconds away but anything further will make them cry. Look at the USSR's attitude to emigrants! It is the same attitude they would have to space colonists. If people leave then they can't control them anymore and that is the thing they hate the most. Just look at @B0ycey she is so desperate to believe space colonisation is impossible solely because she is afraid that means people can and will escape totalitarianism. There will always be somewhere in the universe people can be free. And you only want it because you don't realise that totalitarianism won't work in space because you believe that FTL is easy and inevitable while in all probability it is impossible and even if it were possible we will probably have spread out over most of the galaxy before anyone can actually make it work by which time it is too late.

starman2003 wrote:It's naive to think those for whom self aggrandizement is everything will do the bulk of the work. Neither corporations nor people in general will voluntarily make the enormous sacrifices essential for building a lot of infrastructure in space. Inevitably it'll be extremely costly, just like industrialization on earth itself. Even in the US, the emphasis on investment over consumption meant deprivation for many people and I doubt it's possible now under democracy, or as long as it lasts.

"self aggrandizement" is the govs especially totalitarian govs, who else wants to populate the world with giant statues of themselves? :lol:

starman2003 wrote: As you like it, I see you have enough detractors around here as it is. :lol:

I am proud to be human so of course non-human misanthropes will hate me.
#14987620
SolarCross wrote:Just look at @B0ycey she is so desperate to believe space colonisation is impossible solely because she is afraid that means people can and will escape totalitarianism.


Firstly, within this thread there is no presentable argument showing the correlation of space travel and totalitarianism. If "visiting the stars" is our escape from it then explain how this is possible as a totalitarian is a concept that could also be implied anyway, on any planet. So all you have done is assumed a link and really I can't see how this is a starter as this thread is merely an obsessive thought from someone who thinks capitalism is the dogs bollocks.

Second, human limitations are real. To the extent we really are survivable on Earth only. Perhaps you might condition a few of the fittest humans to spend a long time in space, but by doing so they suffer physicallying on their return (and they still rely on the Earth for supplies as well I might add). If you think we can send even half the population of Earth into space to escape dictstorships you are not a realist but a fantasist.

Thirdly technology. You are relying on theoretical science. Even if it does work in might not ever be energy efficent FYI. But let's say you are right and it is. You think that whilst this type of technology improves AI won't or something? Robots will do any work in space better than humans for profit because of... wait for it... human limitations.

Forth cost. Capitalism is about profit. The upfront cost of these projects are exceptional and will never go down due to the level of technology needed. Which means private investors will always seek the cheapest alternatives. And again that is AI. Creating mining robots would be possible now and would improve massively with the only a fraction of the R&D costs of your ideas for power sources we might use in Interstellar space travel to be a reality I might add.

And finally five, irony. China is leading the space race. Private ownership is investing their money in sending humans into space for a few hours at a time whilst authoritarian China is considering building a space station on the moon and has explored the dark side of the moon for the first time. So it would require not the desire for profit to improve space exploration but national pride. But realistically to profit from space there is no real need to explore the solar system anyway. Because money is a human concept and actually needs a social contract within a confounded environment such as Earth to work. And Socialism is more about cooperation which is required for such projects to expand too. And this probably explains why Russia and not America really won the Space race as they we the first to invent things that matter whilst America dicked around trying to get men on the moon because there was nothing left to win for them.
#14987655
B0ycey wrote:Firstly, within this thread there is no presentable argument showing the correlation of space travel and totalitarianism. If "visiting the stars" is our escape from it then explain how this is possible as a totalitarian is a concept that could also be implied anyway, on any planet. So all you have done is assumed a link and really I can't see how this is a starter as this thread is merely an obsessive thought from someone who thinks capitalism is the dogs bollocks.
Over in The Amish Achieved Communism thread I ended one post on page 4 with: The environment will eventually become a human technology, and when it does, it will require constant maintenance, because the whole of it will be an engineering problem. My point- Intelligent systems, namely societal networks, as they evolve (extension of the self-propagating nature of consciousness), become more complex. Complexity as a systems characteristic places limits on human behavior and the idea of freedom. Furthermore, as we simplify operations through automation, lessen the workload and shift the workflow away from human input/output, automation imposes restrictions on free-will, which ultimately limits the idea of individual autonomy. Once we exit Earth and enter a man-made environment, our survival depends on the technological support systems we've created for space travel. These new conditions create a totalitarian environment, because there will be little room for erroneous behavior. In a way, It will resemble military life, and most activities will be influenced by the group or team you're living with.

Second, human limitations are real. To the extent we really are survivable on Earth only. Perhaps you might condition a few of the fittest humans to spend a long time in space, but by doing so they suffer physicallying on their return (and they still rely on the Earth for supplies as well I might add). If you think we can send even half the population of Earth into space to escape dictstorships you are not a realist but a fantasist.
I find it rather curious how astronauts and space agencies have a problem with travel beyond low-earth orbit, namely the van allen radiation belts, and claim we've lost the technology that brought us to the moon.



After-all, American chemical engineer, Donald Pettit said:



Thirdly technology. You are relying on theoretical science. Even if it does work in might not ever be energy efficent FYI. But let's say you are right and it is. You think that whilst this type of technology improves AI won't or something? Robots will do any work in space better than humans for profit because of... wait for it... human limitations.
Yes, and this is why we're building robots. It's for the militarization of space for space capitalism.

Forth cost. Capitalism is about profit. The upfront cost of these projects are exceptional and will never go down due to the level of technology needed. Which means private investors will always seek the cheapest alternatives. And again that is AI. Creating mining robots would be possible now and would improve massively with the only a fraction of the R&D costs of your ideas for power sources we might use in Interstellar space travel to be a reality I might add.
Furthermore, private sectors operate like sub-contractors. Aerospace is a part of the defense industry.

And finally five, irony. China is leading the space race. Private ownership is investing their money in sending humans into space for a few hours at a time whilst authoritarian China is considering building a space station on the moon and has explored the dark side of the moon for the first time. So it would require not the desire for profit to improve space exploration but national pride.
Hence what drove the cold-war era space race. National pride propaganda.

But realistically to profit from space there is no real need to explore the solar system anyway. Because money is a human concept and actually needs a social contract within a confounded environment such as Earth to work. And Socialism is more about cooperation which is required for such projects to expand too. And this probably explains why Russia and not America really won the Space race as they we the first to invent things that matter whilst America dicked around trying to get men on the moon because there was nothing left to win for them.
Actually, I'd say the original motivation concerned satellite communications and nuclear weapons delivery systems.

What happened to Telstar?

Telstar operated successfully until February 1963, when it ceased to communicate, probably as a result of radiation from American nuclear-weapons testing in the atmosphere. Telstar 2, a heavier but basically similar satellite, was launched on May 7, 1963, into a higher orbit (apogee 10,720 km [6,700 miles]). Successors to Telstar were placed in higher circular orbits, permitting them to keep fixed positions in respect to Earth; three such satellites can provide continuous transmission to practically all points on the globe.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/T ... -satellite

July 12, 1962: The Day Information Went Global

Telstar was launched by NASA on July 10, 1962, from Cape Canaveral, Fla., and was the first privately sponsored space-faring mission. Two days later, it relayed the world's first transatlantic television signal, from Andover Earth Station, Maine, to the Pleumeur-Bodou Telecom Center, Brittany, France.

Developed by Bell Telephone Laboratories for AT&T, Telstar was the world's first active communications satellite and the world's first commercial payload in space. It demonstrated the feasibility of transmitting information via satellite, gained experience in satellite tracking and studied the effect of Van Allen radiation belts on satellite design. The satellite was spin-stabilized to maintain its desired orientation in space. Power to its onboard equipment was provided by a solar array, in conjunction with a battery back-up system.

Although operational for only a few months and relaying television signals of a brief duration, Telstar immediately captured the imagination of the world. The first images, those of President John F. Kennedy and of singer Yves Montand from France, along with clips of sporting events, images of the American flag waving in the breeze and a still image of Mount Rushmore, were precursors of the global communications that today are mostly taken for granted.

Telstar operated in a low-Earth orbit and was tracked by the ground stations in Maine and France. Each ground station had a large microwave antenna mounted on bearings, to permit tracking the satellite during the approximately half-hour period of each orbit when it was overhead. The signals from Telstar were received and amplified by a low-noise "maser" (Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation), the predecessor of the modern laser. After demonstrating the feasibility of the concept, subsequent communications satellites adopted a much higher orbit, at 22,300 miles above the Earth, at which the satellite's speed matched the Earth's rotation and thus appeared fixed in the sky. During the course of its operational lifespan, Telstar 1 facilitated over 400 telephone, telegraph, facsimile and television transmissions. It operated until November 1962, when its on-board electronics failed due to the effects of radiation.


https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/ ... lstar.html

Lastly, as stated earlier in this thread, the information age = applied control theory.

Information age: The modern age regarded as a time in which information has become a commodity that is quickly and widely disseminated and easily available especially through the use of computer technology

Control Theory

Control theory, field of applied mathematics that is relevant to the control of certain physical processes and systems. Although control theory has deep connections with classical areas of mathematics, such as the calculus of variations and the theory of differential equations, it did not become a field in its own right until the late 1950s and early 1960s. At that time, problems arising in engineering and economics were recognized as variants of problems in differential equations and in the calculus of variations, though they were not covered by existing theories. At first, special modifications of classical techniques and theories were devised to solve individual problems. It was then recognized that these seemingly diverse problems all had the same mathematical structure, and control theory emerged.

As long as human culture has existed, control has meant some kind of power over the environment. For example, cuneiform fragments suggest that the control of irrigation systems in Mesopotamia was a well-developed art at least by the 20th century bc. There were some ingenious control devices in the Greco-Roman culture, the details of which have been preserved. Methods for the automatic operation of windmills go back at least to the European Middle Ages. Large-scale implementation of the idea of control, however, was impossible without a high level of technological sophistication, and the principles of modern control started evolving only in the 19th century, concurrently with the Industrial Revolution. A serious scientific study of this field began only after World War II.


https://www.britannica.com/science/cont ... athematics

Norbert Wiener and cybernetics

Wiener became interested in cybernetics while developing computers and automated anti-aircraft artillery during World War II. When tracking a flying aircraft you make a number of observations to predict its future position. But — said Wiener — in war the actions of the gunner need to be part of such a prediction as well! After all, the pilot will change course in response to enemy fire. The gunner will adjust in turn, leading to a cycle of adjustments and re-adjustments.

This is a feedback loop — the actions of gunners eventually influence their own future responses. Wiener noted that feedback loops are everywhere. Our own actions come back to influence us in many ways. Think about how our actions are causing changes in the climate, which in turn affect us profoundly. If we want to control the world around us, we need to understand such feedback.


https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2901.htm

Now please (re)read my 1st post in this thread.

Thanks,

-RT
#14987660
RhetoricThug wrote:I find it rather curious how astronauts and space agencies have a problem with travel beyond low-earth orbit, namely the van allen radiation belts, and claim we've lost the technology that brought us to the moon.



After-all, American chemical engineer, Donald Pettit said:



When they are talking about "not having the technology anymore" they are talking about having an active service Rocket system capable of doing that. Saturn V carried the Apollo missions but has since been retired. The space shuttle is not capable of that because it was designed for other things.

The worry the van allen belts represent is to on board electronics as much as the crew. In the 1960s the computers they took along were very simple things comparable to a pocket calculator. Today they would be packing in modern much more complex and sensitive gear which would be much more vulnerable to cosmic rays.

Humans can tank a certain amount of radiation because humans are regenerative systems and also in the 1960s people tended to be a bit less prissy about health and safety fears. If humans couldn't take on the chin even small and brief doses of radiation then nuclear power stations wouldn't be a thing and neither would we use X-rays to look through living flesh. Yet we do both.

Image

Image
Last edited by SolarCross on 12 Feb 2019 19:02, edited 1 time in total.
#14987662
You should address RTs main message @SolarCross. It contradicts your topic. That is technological advancement enhances Totalitarianism and is the main product that creates it. In other words, as society becomes more dependent on technology, totalitarianism is the by product that will come from it. If that is the case, you cannot distance yourself from totalitarianism if your survival depends on technology - as it does in space.
#14987664
B0ycey wrote:You should address RTs main message @SolarCross. It contradicts your topic. That is technological advancement enhances Totalitarianism and is the main product that creates it. In other words, as society becomes more dependent on technology, totalitarianism is the by product that will come from it. If that is the case, you cannot distance yourself from totalitarianism if your survival depends on technology - as it does in space.


Unless he has addressed the issue of light lag I don't see the point.

----------------

Some more on Van Allen Belts:



This is why you shouldn't bother with cranks.
#14987698
SolarCross wrote:Unless he has addressed the issue of light lag I don't see the point.

----------------


:roll: You cherry picked my last post and skipped over my original post. I told you, the logistics behind traveling beyond low earth orbit is a point of curiosity, not my main message.

Additionally, I noted Once we exit Earth and enter a man-made environment, our survival depends on the technological support systems we've created for space travel. These new conditions create a totalitarian environment, because there will be little room for erroneous behavior. In a way, It will resemble military life, and most activities will be influenced by the group or team you're living with. When I think more about it, I think a technocratic-totalitarian society would have many of the notable attributes of Communism, because production and survival would become one thing for a space colony. @B0ycey not sure why SolarCross hasn't addressed the body of my main message. He's a really angry dude, I guess. :?:

Corbyn says it's a coup ---> What apathetic shi[…]

End of maduro - hopefully.

I guess that is a million dollar question. If you[…]

Ukrainegate

Right, and that is by legislation allowing Biven[…]

So you mean its time for another Korea / Vietnam /[…]