Legacy (& abortion rights...)

A fundamental question that needs to be addressed, to provide a focus and a direction for our city, other than just being a “clean-slate” is: What makes a city great? What characteristics make London, New York, or Paris standout above others? It’s not population, I don’t know many people who would place Mumbai or Karachi, the most populous cities, on the top of the list. It’s not necessarily because of a high standard of living, Vienna and Helsinki have some of the highest standards of living in the world. Dubai lacks any real substance, so it’s not money and entertainment. I think it’s perhaps something more intangible, something that can’t be just thrown together or bought. What makes a city great is its legacy, the accumulation of history, ideals, and influence.

Paris was the center of the French Revolution, which brought ideals such as democracy and liberty out of the past and into modern day thought.

New York, the site where the “American Dream” could be actualized.

London, the epicenter of the Industrial Revolution, the headquarters of the greatest empire the world had ever seen.

There are several other cities, and countless more reasons that make these cities great. What I feel needs to be discussed is how we can make our city meaningful. How do we make it worth mentioning in future archives, with something more than just a picture and subtext about how “fun” or “big” it was?

Focusing on the how, I'm very curious as to what makes Singapore and Hong Kong the economic power houses that they are. They have no natural resources to speak of, very little land and yet they are two of the most powerful economic centers in the world. For a city-state that is going to be an entity along these lines, I think this would be an important question to answer.
Whatever that answer is for our city-state to have a legacy at this point in time, I think the focus should be on clean renewable energy, as well as clean products. A few examples would be battery/fuel cell cars, battery/fuel cell aircraft, Moller-style skycars, extreme high tech and cutting edge technologies. Part of the problem that I see in the world is the idolization of sports stars and obsession with financial success. Although in and of themselves these are not bad things, there is nothing to build upon for the advancement of humanity. The names and dates of the great athletes or business tycoons from five hundred years ago are lost to history, but the names and dates of the people who have achieved great scientific breakthroughs are remembered even today. That I feel would be the best legacy of our city state. The intellectual center of the world.

Surely both Singapore and Hong Kong were both initially created as colonial trading centres, their function in life was to be the nexus for economic activity. The fact that they've had continued success after being spun out from their parent companies seems to speak to the success of that as a business model.
I would quiery the idea that only scientists are remembered, I think Bell, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Edison, Ford, Morgan are remembered pretty well. You may well argue that these are pretty recent names, some with decendants still arround, and a couple could be said to be scientists, but I think among the general public you might find as well known as Currie, Wright or Whittle.

lkm wrote:

Surely both Singapore and Hong Kong were both initially created as colonial trading centres, their function in life was to be the nexus for economic activity. The fact that they've had continued success after being spun out from their parent companies seems to speak to the success of that as a business model. I would quiery the idea that only scientists are remembered, I think Bell, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Edison, Ford, Morgan are remembered pretty well. You may well argue that these are pretty recent names, some with decendants still arround, and a couple could be said to be scientists, but I think among the general public you might find as well known as Currie, Wright or Whittle.

I actually referred to scientific breakthroughs, which would encompass Bell, Edison, and I would even put Ford in there as well.  As for Rockefeller and Carnegie, except for their philanthropic pursuits later in life, I can't see what they or Morgan have done that has been a benefit to society.  I'm not saying their accomplishments aren't notable, but I don't consider their profit-at-all-cost philosophies a positive contribution.

As for Singapore and Hong Kong being colonial trading centers, that would be an objective for our city-state to pursue. The question I have is what makes them such GOOD trading centers?

I would suggest the fact that they remain central to trade is merely inertia from their company days, and I think that it is little more than luck that they were chosen to perform that role.
If you want to consider what could perform the same task for our city-state why not ponder the Skylon we were discussing in another thread. Supposing it were to be developed in the manner I suggested as a pan eurpean effort, similar to concorde. A consortium would have to be formed to develop it, probable BAE, EADS, Rolls Royce, etc, but like the channel tunnel, another pan national project, there would have to be a second consortium formed to be the intial purchaser of Skylon's and spaceline. Lets say a collaberation between BA, Iberia, Air France, Ariane, etc.
Their first task is to build a spaceport, it needs to be near the equator, have good transport access and be cheap. So let's say they pick out a nice spot on the Tunisian coast and take out a 99 year lease. So they build their runways, their hangers, and so on and so forth, until they have a little community. Then the Skylons arrive, and they're followed by payloads, and soon satallite builders are setting up shop at the port because customers are wanting faster turn arround. The community grows with the new workers and the expanding business. Then the space tourists arrive with wades of cash and soon there are luxury hotels and casinos for the waiting tourists and their entourage who remain in port while their best friend takes the next bigallow slot. Pretty soon the place is the size of a fairly substantial city with Dubai style super rich living space city in mile high apartments looking down on the hundreds of thousands of African economic migrantsa who have made their way acrosss thousands of kilometres to work as street sweepers, nightwalkers, labourers, construction workers, etc in the city of the stars. Soon somebody finds money to be made in bringing stuff back down and real trade develops, the sea port expands and becomes a major hub regardless of whether the goods are going to the stars.
Congratulations, your city has now surpased its original functions.

Dude, what have you been smokin'? I want some!! That's some serious expansion!

As for Hong Kong and Singapore, I would like to believe that there is a reputation for a certain degree of honest, ethical trade that brings people back for more, but I'm probably wrong. But this might be a selling factor for our city-state.

If your looking for a set of founding principles to build upon that will set you apart from the world, let it be self-sufficiency.

While no society based on such a small geographic area can be completely self-sufficient, particularly from a mineralogical prospective, it can none the less encourage individuals to be self-sufficient when it comes to the staples of life, using technology to provide for their energy, fuel, and food needs. Such steps insulates a society from dependence on unreliable and potentially harmful commercial sources, and greatly reduces the strain of lower incomes from economic ups and downs on society as a whole.

Self sufficiency as a city-state is a desireable goal but that is not a legacy. Achieving greatness in some lasting way is what you build a legacy on.
As witnessed in 1929, plenty of self-sufficient people ended up penniless through no fault of their own, and people of lower incomes were thrown out in the street. The stock market crash and bank failures of 1929 were not supposed to happen again and yet here we are with this sub-prime mortgage crisis.

I know I've mentioned this before, but it was at the very bottom of my post, and there were other things being discussed.

We could make it the center of the human nation, and throw admittance open to any grouping of population (small towns of 100 up to whole continents), with certain governmental and civil requirements (accepting CS democracy among others). I could see a pretty good legacy being built up from that, especially if it remains democratic, free, etc.

And welcome to the CS forum, commodore. That makes 4/6 frequent posters with ID's there.

If your self-sufficient, it doesn't matter what the markets do. You own the mechanisms of your own life support needs, and unless you bet them on the market or buy them on margin, nothing will take them away.

I'll give you an example. A family who did everything right, the husband and wife got married and before they had children, got themselves established financially. The kids grew up and left home and the couple, now in their seventies were retired. They had a substantial nest egg in the bank with which to retire. Then in 1929 the stock market crashed. This wasn't a disaster for the couple because although they had some money in the market the majority was in the bank in a nice, safe savings account. Then their bank failed and they lost everything. With nomoney left they had to sell there house but given the market could only get pennies on the dollar. Eventually this ran dry, and with the job market as bad as it was there was no way anybody was going to hire two old farts when they had there pick of dozens of young workers. The old couple starved to death on the streets. Yes, whether you're self suffient of not, it DOES matter what the markets do.

Unless you're a primitive hunter gatherer running arround in the woods in a loin clothes I'm not sure it's even realistically possible to be self-sufficient. We are a a massively co-dependant society, species even. The knowledge and skills to maintain the average life style is spread out across hundreds, if not thousands of individuals.
No man is an island, as they say.

lkm wrote:

Unless you're a primitive hunter gatherer running arround in the woods in a loin clothes I'm not sure it's even realistically possible to be self-sufficient. We are a a massively co-dependant society, species even. The knowledge and skills to maintain the average life style is spread out across hundreds, if not thousands of individuals.
No man is an island, as they say.

Exactly. In a society the interdependence is a necessity. There is a need for a multi-faceted infrastructure and for that reason there is a need for cooperation for the common good. Self-sufficiency sounds good until you need a hospital because you can't afford to hire your own individual doctor. You might be able to buy a generator for your own electricity, but when you need parts you need to get them from somewhere. You might be able to get water from a stream, but if that stream dries up you're screwed unless the infrastructure has a reservoir for the community. This list goes on and on and on.

Quote :

Exactly. In a society the interdependence is a necessity. There is a need for a multi-faceted infrastructure and for that reason there is a need for cooperation for the common good. Self-sufficiency sounds good until you need a hospital because you can't afford to hire your own individual doctor. You might be able to buy a generator for your own electricity, but when you need parts you need to get them from somewhere. You might be able to get water from a stream, but if that stream dries up you're screwed unless the infrastructure has a reservoir for the community. This list goes on and on and on.

I don't think anyone means self-sufficiency on the individual level, but self-sufficiency on the national level. This degree of self-sufficiency should definitely be a goal of our city, but it shouldn't be the only legacy we leave.

I think it may well be as much a fallacy on the national level as it is on an individual level.

Quote :

I think it may well be as much a fallacy on the national level as it is on an individual level.

Absolutely not. Maybe for a city-state, but not for a nation with virtually unlimited resources.

There will always be something that will need to be imported. It's the nature of trade. Be it oil, uranium, precious metals, it will be something that has to be bought in.

Self suffiency is a nice thing to achieve, but that is not what any society would be remembered for. I think that our city-state should be an intellectual center. A mecca for scientific and technological discovery. Given that our city state would have limited resources our greatest commodity would be our intellectual property.  

that brings us back around to patent law again.

davamanra wrote:

I'll give you an example. A family who did everything right, the husband and wife got married and before they had children, got themselves established financially. The kids grew up and left home and the couple, now in their seventies were retired. They had a substantial nest egg in the bank with which to retire. Then in 1929 the stock market crashed. This wasn't a disaster for the couple because although they had some money in the market the majority was in the bank in a nice, safe savings account. Then their bank failed and they lost everything. With no money left they had to sell there house but given the market could only get pennies on the dollar. Eventually this ran dry, and with the job market as bad as it was there was no way anybody was going to hire two old farts when they had there pick of dozens of young workers. The old couple starved to death on the streets. Yes, whether you're self sufficient of not, it DOES matter what the markets do.

I think your mixing modern and 30's era circumstances, but I get your point. And I'm implying ideas that I haven't properly articulated.

I would say that the situation you describe, and the situation that most people live under, those that do "everything right", are in fact not self sufficient. Under good times, they were financially secure. But you can't eat money.

Humans have basic needs. If you've spent any amount of time on the NewMars forms, as I know many here have, those needs are well documented. Why don't apply the same approach to planet Earth?

No, I'm also talking about right now with the subprime mortgage crisis. I could also be talking about a few years ago with the saving and loan fiasco.
My hypothetical couple was self-sufficient. The reason that I chose that example was because this was a time before social security, where people did not have a social safety net of any kind.
If by self sufficient you mean living on a farm and growing your own food, then I hope I don't need to remind you that you need water to be brought in for irrigation, and the would need to be thousands of "non self sufficient" workers to maintain that infrastructure. You need equipment and "non self sufficient" workers are needed to manufacture them. You get injured and need medical attention some "non self sufficient" doctor might come in handy. I also hope I don't need to remind you that there is only so much land on this planet that can be used for farming and land ain't free.
I have registered on NewMars forum but I haven't got around to reviewing the threads. Regardless, Earth and Mars are apples and oranges. There are close to seven billion people on this planet and zero on Mars. Land is scarcity here, oxygen and water are scarcities there.

davamanra wrote:

Regardless, Earth and Mars are apples and oranges.

I disagree. If the same standard of efficiency, durability, and reliability were applied to habitats built for Earth, we could easily create affordable durable homes with all the required systems that are reliable for decades.

I think I need you to give your defintion of self-sufficiency, because I think we're getting our wires crossed

If the same standards and building regs for mars were applied to earth every home would cost a billion dollars and take fifteen years to build.

I consider self-sufficiency to be a state in which a family produces from their own property in more than sufficient quantities for their nutritional, energy and fuel needs, and the surplus can be sold to pay the maintainance cost of the mechanisms that enables that situation. Furthermore, this can be done without monopolizing such an amount of time as to prevent the owner from maintaining gainful employment, which no longer serves as means of survival in the marketplace, but as investment capital for personal growth and expansion and improvement of the physical life support systems that sustains them.

I submit that this requires a minimum level of health, and a fair amount investment of time and money to get there. The elderly in poor health would have a difficult time maintaining this, as would those of significant disability. It's my belief that this is were family comes in, but unfortunately this is no longer a given.

In prior generations, this would have required a rural environment. That is no longer the case. Technology allows us to grow our own produce in a hydroponic system roughly the size of a large closet. We can produce our own energy, with solar and wind. We can greatly reduce our existing energy needs with better insulation, lighting technology, and heating/cooling technologies, and were on the cusp of producing our own portable energy in the form of batteries, using surplus energy to produce hydrogen for later use, and algae based bio-diesel. With a little work we can get water filtration systems and waste reclamation systems to both support the above biological systems and reduce our overall foot print on the environment, and we can build our homes to a spec that makes them nearly impervious to all but the most dramatic geologic upheavals, and were we can not, we can adapt the above systems to enable a nomadic, if slightly more meager, but secure existence.

If every person was self-sufficient in energy, food and fuel, who would buy the surplus to pay for the production of said goods?

lkm wrote:

If every person was self-sufficient in energy, food and fuel, who would buy the surplus to pay for the production of said goods?

Certainly not everyone will be self sufficient at the same time. There's always going to be shortages here and there, or people still working towards that goal. Businesses are likely to use more energy and fuel than they can produce on their property. Imagine if you could save $50 off the cost of that fancy LCD TV you've wanting if you let the UPS truck fill up at your bio-diesel pump.

And once people people have there necessities in hand, they will move their attention to other things. They might want to go fishing this weekend, and need a few gallons for the boat.

Unless you can find a way for every person in this country to have a plot of land, your version of self sufficiency is a fairy tale. never mind that there are no assurances that land will always be productive. Again during the depression, there were lots of self sufficient farmers who lost everything because of the dust bowl, but I guess they should just be left to starve.
Your fantasy implies that everyperson is able bodied and can do all the chores necessary to maintain his self sufficiency. A veteran comes back from Iraq with a brain injury and he can't even remember his name after two minutes. Another comes back blind. Another comes back with no arms. A civilian has a stroke and can't use the right side of his body. Survival of the fittest I suppose just throw them out on the street and let wild dogs eat them. Commodore, I would really like to encourage you to watch something other than Fox News and listen to somebody other than Rush Limbaugh. Their narrow minded perspective, flawed logic and ignorant rhetoric have caused you to lose your objectivity. I don't for one second say that the liberals have everything right, but at least they don't go around arrogantly talking as if they do.

Although I personally have to agree with his view of your own closet-sized hydroponic produce creator. I think electricity should be managed more locally than personally, as in, say, a 500 kW local nuclear generator.

No closet nuclear reactor in your house then?

no, I would hope not!

Essentially most developed countries operate on an electrical grid. Although there are vulnerabilities to this they can be addressed, but the advantages are great. You can "plug in" new sources of power and the entire country will benefit. You can also "unplug" sources and the other sources can take up the slack. This would make converting over to new, more efficient and cleaner sources, much easier and cost effective.

However nobody operates an electricity grid that is efficiently designed to allow millions of people to plug in their own generating sources.

davamanra wrote:

Unless you can find a way for every person in this country to have a plot of land, your version of self sufficiency is a fairy tale. never mind that there are no assurances that land will always be productive. Again during the depression, there were lots of self sufficient farmers who lost everything because of the dust bowl, but I guess they should just be left to starve.

Actually everything I just described can be done indoors.

davamanra wrote:

Your fantasy implies that everyperson is able bodied and can do all the chores necessary to maintain his self sufficiency. A veteran comes back from Iraq with a brain injury and he can't even remember his name after two minutes. Another comes back blind. Another comes back with no arms. A civilian has a stroke and can't use the right side of his body. Survival of the fittest I suppose just throw them out on the street and let wild dogs eat them.

Again, if you had read everything, you would have noted that I mentioned that while the physically disabled would have a hard time with a lot of the maintainance, that doesn't mean that the systems do not work in there intended function, providing for the biological needs of humanity, and that there are not others who can that care mind those tasks. I specifically mentioned that family is the preferred option, because while a government bureaucrat may be able to keep someone alive, they can't make there life worth living. Family is far more likely do that. Unfortunately that is not always a option. In that case, even in the best economy, their is no shortage of able bodied people on public pay roll who can perform those tasks.

And I should add that a liberal is in no position to lecture on the discarding of an inconvenient human life.

davamanra wrote:

Commodore, I would really like to encourage you to watch something other than Fox News and listen to somebody other than Rush Limbaugh. Their narrow minded perspective, flawed logic and ignorant rhetoric have caused you to lose your objectivity. I don't for one second say that the liberals have everything right, but at least they don't go around arrogantly talking as if they do.

Actually that's exactly what they do on the political level.

"And I should add that a liberal is in no position to lecture on the discarding of an inconvenient human life."


Does that mean you are anti death penalty then?

That is a question better asked of those who earn the death penalty.

Does that also aply to those seeking an abortion then?

Abortion only reaches the level of murder for those who provide it as a service or intentionally conceive, minus the well documented exceptions.

But its largely an issue of a society that doesn't support its children. When unsupported children have children, of course its going to feel like a punishment.

I'm sorry, I was seeking a clarification on your views. If the rightness of the death penalty is a matter for those who deserve it, it stands to reason that the rightness of abortion is a matter for those who seek an abortion. Do you agree or disagree, if so why?

OK, since the can of worms has been opened, it's time for my two cents, or rather ten bucks!
The religious right never has cared about "unborn children." They have been spitballing ideas for years after Roe v Wade and "saving the life of the unborn child" is the first thing they have found that they can make stick. the "unborn child" angle was just what they needed to tug at people's heartstrings. After the sexual revolution, they were against the ropes and so they only pursued abortions past the first trimester and the came up with all the rhetoric to pursue that. Later when they got enough political clout they pushed for moment of conception. They also stopped making exceptions for rape and incest. Now they are not just pursuing ending abortion they are trying to stop birth control or teaching safe and responsible sex. Their true agenda which they don't have the courage or the integrity to admit is simple. Stop the "sin" of fornication. Treat sex the way it was a couple of hundred years ago, as some dirty and disgusting act, only to be performed by married heterosexual couples, only for the purpose of procreation and only in the missionary position. Sound crazy? Where do you think the term "missionary position" came from?
The answer to the question "what came first the chicken or the egg" was actually answered by Aristotle two thousand years ago. The chicken came first, because the chicken is an actually chicken where the egg is merely a potential chicken. He also placed the moment of the beginnig of life at four months, because that's when the mother becomes aware of movement from the fetus. This time frame was adopted and accepted by the church for over a thousand years. but of course the church changed their "eternal" laws whenever it suited their political agenda, as is the religious right today.
Why does the religious right care so much about the "potential" children but care nothing about the "actual" children where are these loving compassionate people when it comes to giving the thousands of parentless children in this country happy and loving homes? "That's not our problem."
The religious right considers abortion against God because it was God's will that a woman become pregnant. Isn't it also against God's will for an infertile couple to get pregnant through artificial
means? If God wanted that couple to have children of there own he would have made them fertile. If it's "playing God" to disrupt the pregnancy process, it is also "against God" to interfere in the conception process, and yet the religious right doesn't seem to have a problem with in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood. Is it not "playing God" to create life in a laboratory? Creating a little abomination in a test tube, something right out of the pages of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein?" Is it not "against God" to conceive a child with the equivalent of a turkey baster? In comparison homosexuality is downright tame!
Abortion is murder. An infertile mother takes fertility drugs and ends up getting pregnant with seven fetuses. Inevitably they are born premature, two stillborn, another dies three days later because of an under developed heart, two suffer brain damage and are mentally retarded and two are healthy. "This is a blessing from God." If abortion is murder then this mother is guilty of three counts of reckless manslaugter and two counts of reckless endangerment. Some "blessing."
Life begins at the moment of conception. Then why is there a problem with birth control? Conservatives don't want to pay to take care of children that the parents can't afford to support and the church, despite preaching be fruitful and multiply turns it's back on it's obedient congregation when they need help supporting all their children after all the money that have put in the collection plate.
If God had meant man to fly, he would have given us wings. If God had NOT meant man to fly he wouldn't have given us the brains to figure out how. If God had not meant man to control his environment and overcome nature, including pregnancy termination and artificial conception, he wouldn't have given us the brains to figure out how.
If abortion is murder then so is capital punishment. If abortion is against God's will then so is artificial conception, organ transplant and Keeping somebody on life support even though they are brain dead.

Well, I was just trying to elicit the meaning of "an inconvienient life" from Commodore, but if we're puting cards on the table, here are mine.
I believe that abortion is a tragic, traumatic, terrible thing, and an absolutely fundamental right for the existence of a free society. It should be a respectful considered decision taken with all due thought and reflection but it should be carried out as soon as humanly possible after conception.
For a free society to exist there must be equality, an equality of choice and free will. The most fundamental right is the right to choose the father to a child, it is a right that for centuries, millenia, has routinely been taken away from women and given to their fathers or brothers by allowing them to choose husbands for their daughters and sisters. It is only in recent history that equality has in some measure has been achieved and a free society has been found, and we are all better for it. But it a right to abortion that garantees that freedom when faced with extremity and without it, it will not be a free society.
In the face of atempts to argue about the start of life and murder, all I can say is biology and common sense resides with freedom of choice, realistically the average abortion is no more murder than me cutting my toenails.
On the subject of capital punishment I feel this, it is a truth self evident to the human condition that murder is fundamentally wrong, every right thinking individual knows that we should not be killing each other. However a nation having a death penalty states that murder is ok in the right context, that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the action, only the context of the action.
Every other developed nation in the world has come to realise this, the persistence of it in America is one of the most deepseated causes of distrust of the USA around the world.
Of course on a practical level there's alot that could be said about the innate imperfection of any legal process, particularly the American one, but that's a different argument.

It seems my entire response was deleted

Anyway, my question is this:
Are there any circumstances where murder/capital punishment are acceptable in a society?

I would contend that it is the responsibility of the state to do its upmost to prevent, as far as it's reasonably possible, all deaths within its borders whether they are through illness, accident or homicide. This is part of the implicit contract a citizen has with their government, that it will not try to kill them or by inaction allow them to come to harm.
Of course a state's armed forces rarely are called into action within its own borders.

Quote :

On the subject of capital punishment I feel this, it is a truth self evident to the human condition that murder is fundamentally wrong, every right thinking individual knows that we should not be killing each other. However a nation having a death penalty states that murder is ok in the right context, that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the action, only the context of the action.

If a nation is invaded, its citizens murdered in the streets, doesn't the nation have the right to defend itself? Murder in this context, yes it's always a terrible thing, but it's necessary. Therefore the nation would be saying that murder is okay in the right context.

How is this different from the death penalty?

The purpose of a military in combat is to achieve desired military objectives, not to kill people, killing people is often a byproduct of the objective but never the objective itself. A modern military force is trained to achieve its objectives with the lowest death toll reasonably possible, minimising casualties on all sides.
The difference from the death penalty is that the objective of the death sentence is to kill someone and the objective of a military action is a political objective.

Death is very often the military's objective.

Death is not a byproduct of war, it is war.

State-sanctioned military is absolutely no different than state-sanctioned execution.

When?

Just because you "reduce casualties" doesn't remove the fact that people still die.

Consequences and effects of actions should be taken into account before those actions occur. If the military wanted to eliminate casualties, they would use non-lethal force. Instead, they're given guns.

Speaking for myself, I haven't killed any, at least not today, I don't think I killed any terrorists yesterday either, but it's so hard to keep track of these things. I take it you couldn't think of a good example to back up your point, I couldn't either, though there must be some, always an exception to every rule.
It's silly to imagine the millitary don't have some concern for minimising casualties in this day and age, if they didn't they'd be given nukes, not guns. Almost every military engagement of post war america could have been more cheaply solved by throwing a few nukes at the problem if only the death toll incured had been declared irrelevant. Also you should note I said a modern military, not to be disparaging, but the american armed forces aren't exactly modern in terms of training, they are known to be somewhat deficient in this area.
I'm still puzzled by this kill terrorists thing, where are you imagining they are being killed? If they were so easy to just kill once captured it would certainly solve gitmo's problems. "Where are all your prisoners?""Oh, we killed them all, apparently we do that."

Deleted