Thread: When will humanity expand into space?

No, they're not similar, because of you maroon some space explorers they'll be the only ones to die. If you kill all the bees, everyone will die. Private companies are no strangers to atrocity, tragedy and teetering the edge of total destruction, and never have been.

Nobody can claim land on a planet - any planet - neither corporations nor individuals. That's because this entire concept of private property is nonsensical. You don't truly have some kind of objective moral right to your land. It's a fantasy concept you, and society, has invented for dealing in a reasonable way with a universe which does not actually give a shit. If you live in the USA, you bought your land from somebody who bought his land from somebody who bought his land from somebody who arbitrarily decided that that patch of land was not the natives' but his. The only reason you think it's moral rather than fraudulent is that the chain of causality is pretty long and thus you don't really care about it.

This is not to say that I don't think property rights are a good idea. They're a useful fiction. From a utilitarian perspective, it's probably one of the best ways, and at the very least, a workable way, for a society to handle the issue of land. I'm just saying that the idea that you can justify this attitude with "logic" as being objectively (somehow?) correct is bizarre, muddy thinking.

The land which is allocated on the moon will, ultimately, not be done by some kind of "moral force" - there isn't one. It simply be done however it will be done. One therefore imagines that it will be done by those with the political and technological power. This means that it might end up in the hands of corporations. It may end up in the hands of states. It may end up in the hands of individuals. What seems most "fair" to me (which really just means what seems most symmetrical and obvious) is that when it's first colonised, every living person on Earth is given a single share of the moon, which they may trade. But I'm not naive enough to think that history will unfold in such a way that this will happen for sure, or whether what does happen can be assigned a meaningful moral value.

I agree that morality doesn't really apply to frontier any more than it applies to well... evolution. The moral justification for one duck will kill another is that the weaker one would weaken the gene pool. But that's not morality, it's strategy. Being able to justify something does not make you morally righteous. Space colonization will most likely not be a morally justified process, if it can be justified at all. Land will be staked out and protected by military/political powers. If the forces protecting this stake are not good enough to protect it, it will change hands until the king of hill is good enough. Granted it won't be that simple, there will be a lot of negotiation and compromise happening as well, not to mention some basic deceit. But generally speaking, the only thing that makes something your land is your ability to protect it. If you really think you own your property, try seceding it.

Originally Posted by sloth

Since "claiming" things is a man-made concept, it is only valid as long as man, in general, allows it.
If you claimed the universe, and everyone agreed to your claim, then it is as valid as any other claim, though I think the entire concept is absurd.

That's your rule, not mine. I go by my rules.

What if someone more powerful than you doesn't like your rules?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's your rule, not mine. I go by my rules.

...What?
I didn't say anything about rules. What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by cmind

A corporation is unable to claim a planet. It's just not possible. I'm afraid I don't understand your point still.

Do you agree with the idea of claiming land at all?

I don't care what anybody says. I own the universe, minus one little planet.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't care what anybody says. I own the universe, minus one little planet.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by sloth

Do you agree with the idea of claiming land at all?

I believe in homesteading as an effective means of parceling out previously unowned land. Does that answer your question?

Originally Posted by cmind

I believe in homesteading as an effective means of parceling out previously unowned land. Does that answer your question?

What would be the difference?

Originally Posted by sloth

What would be the difference?

what is this i dont even

Originally Posted by cmind

what is this i dont even

I don't know. I asked if you agreed with the concept of claiming land, and you started talking about something else.

Originally Posted by sloth

I don't know. I asked if you agreed with the concept of claiming land, and you started talking about something else.

no

Originally Posted by cmind

no

k

So.. Do you agree with the concept of claiming land at all?
Appropriate responses:
*Yes
*No
Inappropriate responses: Something about homesteading and/or parsing and/or goats and/or other things that are not the same as claiming land at all.

Originally Posted by cmind

I believe in homesteading as an effective means of parceling out previously unowned land. Does that answer your question?

No.

Originally Posted by sloth

k
Inappropriate responses: Something about homesteading and/or parsing and/or goats and/or other things that are not the same as claiming land at all.

homesteading is a process of claiming land.

Do not call me childish names.
This post has been reported.

If anyone else would like to discuss this in a mature manner, I'm still interested.

> not having cmind on your Ignore list

Originally Posted by Xei

> not having cmind on your Ignore list

lol Xei.
I didn't know I needed him there.
I prefer mature conversation, even if I must be corrected (maturely) from time to time. I looked up three different sites for definitions of "homestead" and didn't see anything about claiming land. But whatever. The point is I'm not interested in trying to have anything resembling an intellectual conversation with someone who resorts to childish name-calling.

Please limit posts/replies to answering others or the OP and not using unkind words.

Originally Posted by sloth

lol Xei.
I didn't know I needed him there.
I prefer mature conversation, even if I must be corrected (maturely) from time to time. I looked up three different sites for definitions of "homestead" and didn't see anything about claiming land. But whatever. The point is I'm not interested in trying to have anything resembling an intellectual conversation with someone who resorts to childish name-calling.

Homestead principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude, seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possess...ths_of_the_law

The legal tradition of homesteading goes back hundreds of years. How can you take part in a discussion about claiming new land without even knowing of the existence of the term "homesteading"? This literally made me LOL

Originally Posted by cmind

Homestead principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude, seriously?

Possession is nine-tenths of the law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The legal tradition of homesteading goes back hundreds of years. How can you take part in a discussion about claiming new land without even knowing of the existence of the term "homesteading"? This literally made me LOL

I said I'm not interested in conversing with someone who resorts to childish name-calling.
I accept your completely irrelevant point, that I did not know the definition of homesteading. You got me. I don't know why this excites you so much.
If this thread isn't already destroyed, the rest of us can talk about space colonization while you celebrate your victory by yourself.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The most practical reason to go into space is in order to mine resources. I'm the kind of guy that prefers economically motivated industry (as opposed to societally motivated infrastructure) be handled privately (though I believe the employees should own the company on a democratic level). While colonization is an important first step, the first to stake new territory are those dreaming of opportunity.

Unfortunately this won't be very pretty. Cmind is trying to romanticize share-holders to an unfair degree. If oil companies here are pushing fracking even though it's proven to cause earthquakes, if it's been proven Monsanto is killing the bees (which would kill us, too) and they're suppressing the studies rather than changing or being dismantled, you can fully expect some awful atrocities to accompany space exploration, as well.

Any time there is new territory, it is likely to be a new "wild west". The internet is a good example. How would we enforce ANY sort of laws or agreements on another planet?

Same way as on this planet, by having more guns.

Perhaps there could be law enforcement, with enough space lasers, and space food, and space beer, and other necessary space supplies that would be needed for space cop duties and activities.

This will, inevitably, become ugly too.