|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 1, 2005 21:55:44 GMT -5
An earth-like planet is discovered two-hundred light years away, and you are part of an expedition to set up the first human colony outside the solar system. How would you go about doing this? Who would be the colonists and what would they bring with them? What would be their social structure, their political system, their religion, race, ethnicity, equipment, etc. etc.?
For example, would you choose to send members of a single group or a cross-section of humanity?
Would you send adults, children, a cross-section of all age groups, women + frozen sperm, or?
Would they belong to the same religion, or would religion be unimportant? Would they be democratic and egalitarian or hierarchical, and governed by bodies of technocrats?
Would they be chosen based on good looks, intelligence, health, or would you include a group that was variable in terms of these factors?
Would you stock up the ship with all sorts of equipment and materials to ensure that they wouldn't miss anything, or would you take the bare minimum and maximize the number of individuals sent, hoping that they will be able to figure out a way to "live off the land".
Add any more factors that you would consider.
Note, that the goal here is not only to ensure the survival and success of the colony, but to build a society in which you would actually want to live in, since it will be impossible to go back or communicate with the Earth once your reach your new destination.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 3, 2005 19:52:58 GMT -5
An earth-like planet is discovered two-hundred light years away, and you are part of an expedition to set up the first human colony outside the solar system. How would you go about doing this? Who would be the colonists and what would they bring with them? What would be their social structure, their political system, their religion, race, ethnicity, equipment, etc. etc.? This is an interesting scenario that has already been touched elsewhere in Dodona. Let's play again with some of the numerous possibilities! My logic tells me that it would be best to jump-start this new colony with as many individuals as it is possible to load on the starship, which would include a wide cross section of humankind. Age does matter, but it has to be considered together with some other factors. I don't think it would be wise to send children but including teenagers in the crew would be very necessary and desirable. Frozen sperm? mmm... There would have to be a very, very special reason, otherwise no. Besides, special cryogenic freezers would be too cumbersome. The man/woman ratio would have to be given special consideration from a purely objective point, devoid of preconceived moralistic conventions. There has to be something akin to religion, some kind of philosophy, ideal, principle, or whichever way it is agreed to call it, that helps to bond and cement the relationship among all participants or colonists. This has to be a deadly serious concept that everyone can swear by and make an oath to. It could be an existing religion, a composite of existing religions or a new religion altogether designed from scratch. Government could be a well balanced aristo-epistemo-demo-cracy. Good looks alone are not enough, just as not-so-good looks shouldn't be an exclusion criterion. A rigorous selection should take place that considers the most desirable characteristics in terms of physical, mental and emotional qualities. The equipment should be the minimum necessary. These should be mostly tools that will enable you to build other tools, or better yet, robots that build other robots. How-to instructions or manuals on how to solve every conceivable problem are a must (in duplicate). Of course it is essential to carry the knowledge and skills to "live off the land". This is the hardest part. The inertia would be to try to do things as colonists remembered from back home. That is fine when it comes to solving problems for which there is already a proven solution. Trouble is that, as it is clearly seen here right now, technology is a double edge sword that can create many other problems as it can solve if it isn't carefully controlled. The other thing that can really spoil everything is violence among one another. p.s. nice avatar!
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 3, 2005 20:12:13 GMT -5
Age does matter, but it has to be considered together with some other factors. I don't think it would be wise to send children but including teenagers in the crew would be very necessary and desirable. Without children there will be a "gap" in the age distribution, and this may mean that there will be a time with middle-aged people and children but without any people in the most productive age group. You can store tons of frozen sperm, and you don't need to store it in very low temperatures to preserve it. It's the most space-effective way to preserve genetic material, unless you can store it as data and have the ability to write it onto "blank" sperm. A biased sex ratio (in favor of women) could at most double the population in the next generation. But will the ones who are already grown up accept an artificial religion?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Apr 4, 2005 4:24:17 GMT -5
. Note, that the goal here is not only to ensure the survival and success of the colony, but to build a society in which you would actually want to live in, since it will be impossible to go back or communicate with the Earth once your reach your new destination. I think the most reasonable solution would be to take part of one existing and successful society (as, say Japanese, or North Americans, or Dutch), respecting its proportions, and move it to the new planet. In URSS they did it with the German communities and it worked. The idea we should choose sex ratio, IQ, background etc. of the new citizens implies we know how a society works and we can egineer one, better than the existing society. I don't think anyone can know what makes a society work. The societies we live in arised without engineering, "naturally". They are a system that balanced itself through a very long history of trial and error, and reflect the enormous amount of knowledge dispersed between their members. No man or committe can equal such knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 20:11:13 GMT -5
I think the most reasonable solution would be to take part of one existing and successful society (as, say Japanese, or North Americans, or Dutch), respecting its proportions, and move it to the new planet. In URSS they did it with the German communities and it worked. To what degree can we "scale down" a society though, before its internal dynamics break down? For example, public intellectuals or priests are a small minority in western societies, yet they have great influence. By scaling down a society many such minorities filling various roles might be excluded from the composition of the colony. Which brings us to the question: does a society's identity and future depend more on the average individual or on the tiny professional or other minorities which fill societal niches? Can the small minorities exist without the majorities or vice versa?
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 4, 2005 21:59:25 GMT -5
I agree that “scaling down” a society might break down the optimal numerical proportions between individuals able to perform specialized occupations and those that only perform ordinary every-day chores. But this question about the interdependence of societal minorities and majorities deserves a lengthy reflection.
I think it isn’t only about the small minorities existing without the majorities or vice versa, because there’s no doubt that some specialized functions are essential, but the real question is which ones. Current political correctness could be an obstacle to really and openly debate this topic. It isn’t easy admitting that one's abilities aren't that important.
Maybe the best suited candidates for a futuristic extraterrestrial colonization would be those with multiple abilities, some sort of jacks of all trades.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 22:44:48 GMT -5
The most important type of ability might be the ability to teach. Imagine for example, that we include a world-class physicist who has a firm grasp of modern physics and would be invaluable to the colony in making quick expert decisions. However, his expertise would be useless in the long-term if he could not pass it on, and is used to discussing his science only with his peers.
On the other hand, how important is the ability to teach? Certainly in the old days most abilities were passed from one generation to the next via some sort of apprenticeship, but today there are many automated ways to receive knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Apr 5, 2005 4:26:37 GMT -5
To what degree can we "scale down" a society though, before its internal dynamics break down? I think that as long as there is social cohesion between the group, the group can anlways create within itself the subdivisions necessary to exist as a well functioning society. The colonizers of the USA are an example. does a society's identity and future depend more on the average individual or on the tiny professional or other minorities which fill societal niches? Interesting question. Prima facie I would say it depends more on the average person. Those who are in the "elite" of the society can be influential in their time, but it is not given that their offspring will be in the same position. Unless the society is very rigidly organised in classes, after some generation the persons in the key roles (whatever such roles may be) will be the offspring of the average persons (this for the law of numbers) and thus is the cultural and genetic capital of the average person that counts more. To evaluate if in a given moment a society is more shaped by the elite class or by the masses we could consider many examples. For instance South Africa, until the elite kept absolute power was more shaped by elite then by masses IMHO, as it was more similar to an European than to an African country. On the other hand, in Latin America where the elite has made more compromises with the masses, the latter have given a very important contribute in shaping the society, which are not similar to European societies. Summing this up, I think that the cultural capital of the "mother" society considered as a whole (e.g.: sense of duty of the Japanese; respect for the rule of law of the British) would be the most crucial thing in shaping the new colonies.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 5, 2005 21:15:15 GMT -5
Those who are in the "elite" of the society can be influential in their time, but it is not given that their offspring will be in the same position. I was not thinking only (or primarily) of such persons as carriers of advantageous genes. Rather, I thought of them as carriers of a certain type of mentality or culture which can be transmitted by their personal presence, and not necessarily via textbooks or video material. For example, one could learn science from a series of good textbooks of increasing difficulty, but is it possible to establish a scientific culture without actual scientists who actually practice science? Many people are able to understand a scientific theory, but that will not teach one how to do science.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 5, 2005 21:32:48 GMT -5
The most important type of ability might be the ability to teach. Most definitely! That paired with the ability to learn, of course! All right. So now we have Education as a fundamental priority of the new planetary colony. Cybernetic interactive devices are fine as supplementary or even as the principal means of educating oneself, but the human teacher can't be completely sustituted for most persons.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 5, 2005 21:38:15 GMT -5
The idea we should choose sex ratio, IQ, background etc. of the new citizens implies we know how a society works and we can egineer one, better than the existing society. It would be just a starting point. In time nature would take its own course. By considering that very long history of trial and error we can at least try to make better informed decisions, even if we don't know it all.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Apr 6, 2005 3:56:49 GMT -5
I was not thinking only (or primarily) of such persons as carriers of advantageous genes. Neither did I. I was thinking about the cultural capital (values) one transmits to his offspring. For instance the value of knowledge, or of studying. I understand you refer to what such persons could transmit to others by teaching, but I think that the core values of an individual are influenced mainly by the family. That's why I would give more importance to the cultural capital of the average man. Vela: I was suggesting that, considered our ignorance, a better solution could be to take a portion of an existing society as it is (say: Tokyo's citizens) or just to allow he who wants it to go. Two non constructivist way to build the colony.
|
|
|
Post by Lusitan on May 2, 2005 13:01:31 GMT -5
An earth-like planet is discovered two-hundred light years away, and you are part of an expedition to set up the first human colony outside the solar system. How would you go about doing this? Who would be the colonists and what would they bring with them? What would be their social structure, their political system, their religion, race, ethnicity, equipment, etc. etc.? For example, would you choose to send members of a single group or a cross-section of humanity? Would you send adults, children, a cross-section of all age groups, women + frozen sperm, or? Would they belong to the same religion, or would religion be unimportant? Would they be democratic and egalitarian or hierarchical, and governed by bodies of technocrats? Would they be chosen based on good looks, intelligence, health, or would you include a group that was variable in terms of these factors? Would you stock up the ship with all sorts of equipment and materials to ensure that they wouldn't miss anything, or would you take the bare minimum and maximize the number of individuals sent, hoping that they will be able to figure out a way to "live off the land". Add any more factors that you would consider. Note, that the goal here is not only to ensure the survival and success of the colony, but to build a society in which you would actually want to live in, since it will be impossible to go back or communicate with the Earth once your reach your new destination. "What would be their [...] race [...]?" I think the correct thing to to do would be to colonize the planet with the most endangered race, that is the australoids. Every race of mankind is a patrimony and should be preserved, every planet found or space colony should be colonized by a unique breed of mankind, eventually we would have a universe full of different races and sub-races of people. New races would form by combinations of other existent races and sub-races, but natural selection and biological evolution in humans will stop; after singularity, non-biological identities will be our trancendent servents, with nanotechnology they will prevent any mutation to avoid cancer and hereditary diseases, humans will have a indefite (virtually endless) life span. The natural formation of races will not happen.
|
|
RuneJ
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by RuneJ on Jun 11, 2005 11:15:50 GMT -5
We will never find a planet that is 100% like earth, and it is therefore important to use some of our most adaptable plants and animals when we colonize a new earth-like planet. Another "earth" will most likely lack some minerals that are important to humans, and colonization by humans alone would therefore be a painful process where a huge majority dies every single generation. An average rat has a life span of less than two years, and is able to reproduse when it is only 3 months old. That means that it can go through 4 cycles of evolution and adaptation every single year, and that it can go through 400 generations in a human 100-year lifespan. It would take humans 10,000 years to go through the same adaptation process(!). As you can see from my example, colonization by humans should not be our first priority. (We could, however, use genetic material from adapted rats and mice to enhance ourselves to be able to survive on another planet.)
|
|
|
Post by polygonwindow on Jul 2, 2005 2:36:04 GMT -5
The most important type of ability might be the ability to teach. Most definitely! That paired with the ability to learn, of course! All right. So now we have Education as a fundamental priority of the new planetary colony. Cybernetic interactive devices are fine as supplementary or even as the principal means of educating oneself, but the human teacher can't be completely sustituted for most persons. People with IQ's of about or around 128 and above (++) can essentially train themselves so the human teacher becomes osbsolete after a certain childhood age level. "Persons of average IQ (between 90 and 100) are not competitive for most professional and executive-level work but are easily trained for the bulk of jobs in the American economy. By contrast, individuals in the top 5 percent of the adult population can essentially train themselves, and few occupations are beyond their reach mentally." .
|
|