Political philosophy and stuff split from German elections

[markfiend]

And then it's at least possible that what the public needs is not actually what the public wants. Juvenal's panem et circenses and all that.

But I don't know how you get around that; any alternative to democracy is going to suffer from Juvenal's other problem; quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[markfiend]

Mark, would you agree that there is no system of government that man cannot corrupt, pervert, and abuse?

Yes probably.

Democracy is not a great system. Its main advantage is that it's at least eight times better than anything else.

You don't strike me as the Machiavellian type...

Well, we all get delusions of grandeur from time to time

[andymackem]

Mark, would you agree that there is no system of government that man cannot corrupt, pervert, and abuse?

Yes probably.

Democracy is not a great system. Its main advantage is that it's at least eight times better than anything else.

If you believe that mediocrity for all is the best way forward. It might be the safest and most comfortable way forward, but that isn't necessarily the same thing.

How many of the world's greatest monuments were built on the back of brutally repressive regimes (Pyramids, Great Wall of China, anything Roman just to get us started)? Who bankrolled the Renaissance? etc etc.

It makes an interesting moral debate: was the gulag a worthwhile price to pay for the music of Shostakovich?

[canon docre]

To add fuel:

In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

Another thing is: if we wouldnt live in a democracy, we wouldnt probably be able to express any such thoughts at all.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[markfiend]

How many of the world's greatest monuments were built on the back of brutally repressive regimes (Pyramids, Great Wall of China, anything Roman just to get us started)? Who bankrolled the Renaissance? etc etc.

It makes an interesting moral debate: was the gulag a worthwhile price to pay for the music of Shostakovich?

Interesting point. Very Panglossian of you

For every example, there's the counter-example though; possibly the most important human achievement of the last thousand years, the Apollo moon missions, were accomplished under a democracy.

[andymackem]

How many of the world's greatest monuments were built on the back of brutally repressive regimes (Pyramids, Great Wall of China, anything Roman just to get us started)? Who bankrolled the Renaissance? etc etc.

It makes an interesting moral debate: was the gulag a worthwhile price to pay for the music of Shostakovich?

Interesting point. Very Panglossian of you

For every example, there's the counter-example though; possibly the most important human achievement of the last thousand years, the Apollo moon missions, were accomplished under a democracy.

BUT the first vehicles and men in space were sent there by the USSR, using technology developed by Nazi Germany. Not a perfect counter-example, is it?

[RicheyJames]

For every example, there's the counter-example though; possibly the most important human achievement of the last thousand years, the Apollo moon missions, were accomplished under a democracy.

BUT the first vehicles and men in space were sent there by the USSR, using technology developed by Nazi Germany. Not a perfect counter-example, is it?

and, lest we forget, the american's own space program was built on the backs of nazi war criminals and their slave labourers.

[andymackem]

And, while we're on the subject, why is putting a man on the moon the most important achievement of the past 1,000 years?

And, if it's so important, does it justify the dubious origins of (some of) the technology involved; equally does it justify the fact that rocket technology is mostly used to blow people up in ever more colourful ways?

[RicheyJames]

And, while we're on the subject, why is putting a man on the moon the most important achievement of the past 1,000 years?

well it's obvious isn't it? science is the new god and as space exploration represents the very pinnacle of science we must accept its importance with unquestioning faith.

[boudicca]

To add fuel:

In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

Admittedly that is a cracker...

But at the same time, Switzerland also has one of the highest standards of living in the world... surely this can only help any talent or genius that does exist in the Alpine valleys to flourish... Maybe they've just been too busy skiing and yodelling to paint any masterpieces .

Full many a flower is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air.

Seriously, one of the feelings that always overwhelms me when I see some scenes of warfare, death, famine and bloodshed in various parts of the world is the sadness of knowing that amongst those hoardes of people, there are very probably Einsteins, Da Vincis and so on... whose potential contribution to humanity will never be made because of their country's instability.

On the other hand, hardship and instability can provide a certain fire in the gut, a passion, that comfortable circumstances may not.

Wot do I know. I've always been rather fond of the idea of PR, but I've never managed to make up my mind on coalition government.

[markfiend]

Jeez.

Nazi contributions aside (and Werner von Braun wasn't much more than a figurehead), this planet has a limited lifespan. I'm not talking eco-hell gloom and doom, but the Sun will run out some day. If we want to survive, we have to get into space. The moon was the first step. I just worry that some people's short-termism is likely to mean we'll never make it. I struggle with this neo-luddite thinking sometimes I really do.

[canon docre]

Jeez.

Nazi contributions aside (and Werner von Braun wasn't much more than a figurehead), this planet has a limited lifespan. I'm not talking eco-hell gloom and doom, but the Sun will run out some day. If we want to survive, we have to get into space. The moon was the first step. I just worry that some people's short-termism is likely to mean we'll never make it. I struggle with this neo-luddite thinking sometimes I really do.

So far the moon didnt bring us anything except a better frying pan. Let's hope Mars will get us some awesome goodies.

[markfiend]

common misconception that. Teflon was around well before the moon missions.

[boudicca]

Jeez.
the Sun will run out some day.

Bloody goff .

If we want to survive, we have to get into space.

Cyber goff.

By the time the Sun reaches the end of it's rather puny (in astronomical terms) lifespan, WE (humans) will no longer be US anymore though, will we? Don't think we've reached our evolutionary peak just yet, least I bloody hope not!

Gotta make way for the homo superior...

[canon docre]

common misconception that. Teflon was around well before the moon missions.

Not even that? Doesnt make your position stronger, MF.


@B: I thought Timsinister is already the evolutionary peak?

[JAMES RAY]

Seriously, one of the feelings that always overwhelms me when I see some scenes of warfare, death, famine and bloodshed in various parts of the world is the sadness of knowing that amongst those hoardes of people, there are very probably Einsteins, Da Vincis and so on... whose potential contribution to humanity will never be made because of their country's instability.

Isn't the death, famine & bloodshed of inocent people who have nothing remarkable to offer mankind enough to overwhelm you.

[boudicca]

Seriously, one of the feelings that always overwhelms me when I see some scenes of warfare, death, famine and bloodshed in various parts of the world is the sadness of knowing that amongst those hoardes of people, there are very probably Einsteins, Da Vincis and so on... whose potential contribution to humanity will never be made because of their country's instability.

Isn't the death, famine & bloodshed of inocent people who have nothing remarkable to offer mankind enough to overwhelm you.

Well yes, of course... hoped that went without saying...

[markfiend]

common misconception that. Teflon was around well before the moon missions.

Not even that? Doesnt make your position stronger, MF.

Well, I guess so.

But it's difficult to quantify things that have come from the space program; there's no clear-cut demarcation "this piece of research is for the space program, this piece is not."

But communications satellites, fibre-optics, the computer on your desk in front of you all spring to mind as things that either would not exist or would exist in a very different form without the space program. But that's by-the-by. It's the long-term goals of getting humanity off this ball of rock and into the galaxy that I'm more interested in.

[timsinister]

I'm with Mark on this one - expansion beyond this planet is the manifest destiny of man, although at the same time I feel humanity has earned no right to contaminate another planet...

An interesting ethical debate, perchance? Is this thread suitably off the topic of German elections to warrant its own home?

Arguing against the position of the Apollo project, wasn't it nothing more than another skirmish in a long line of non-military battles against the USSR? After all, the entire space race petered out after that point...theoretically, we should have the first permanent lunar base, not a wonky metal umbrella in low orbit.

I'd argue more that humanity's greatest achievements include the United Nations (a useless appendage of bureacratic incompetance designed to rubber-stamp first-world expansionism), harnessing nuclear power (elevating collateral damage to insane proportions), and our amazing capacity to survive our own stupidity time and time and time again.

I thought Timsinister is already the evolutionary peak?

The peak of Vodka-Sequenced Genes, maybe...

[markfiend]

I'm with Mark on this one - expansion beyond this planet is the manifest destiny of man, although at the same time I feel humanity has earned no right to contaminate another planet...

Who said anything about planets? Aim high; we want the huge ringworlds like in Halo or the Culture Orbitals (Iain M Banks). Technologically difficult, to do a full O, but on a much smaller scale we could build artificial space-habitats with present technology. Hollow out asteroids, air-proof them, fit them up with Ion rockets and you've got generation ships. With today's tech.

An interesting ethical debate, perchance? Is this thread suitably off the topic of German elections to warrant its own home?

OK then

Arguing against the position of the Apollo project, wasn't it nothing more than another skirmish in a long line of non-military battles against the USSR? After all, the entire space race petered out after that point...theoretically, we should have the first permanent lunar base, not a wonky metal umbrella in low orbit.

I remember in the foreword to the novel of 2001, Arthur C Clarke saying that the money spent by the USA on the Vietnam war would have paid for everything in the film 2001 to be made reality. (well, obviously apart from the black monoliths...)

[MrChris]

MrChris on art: in Holland they have, historically, subsidised a great deal of art, and it's been quite possible to live as an artist and not have to worry constantly about paying the rent. As a result, how many new Rembrandts? None. But there could be several answers to this problem: one is that it's not only the existence of Rembrandts that justifies the artistic journey, otherwise there'd be no point in most people ever picking up a pencil. There's something to be said for a vibrant and creative culture, even if it fails to tick the boxes of elitist art critics. Another answer is that the standards of the judgement of art are archaic themselves: we don't live in a time when great 'innovations' such as the development of perspective or chiaroscuro in painting can be made, and there will be no new impressionism or cubism. That's all been done, and art, like music, is now much more of a democratic (i.e. mass, accessible) activity. And there's nothing wrong with this, but we have to accept that the goalposts have changed.

MrChris on space travel: I take a relaxed attitude for this. I agree that if the human race is going to survive beyond 100,000 years or so, we'll need to develop serious space-travel capacities. But I figure that it's pretty wasteful and, to be honest, morally disgusting to be spending trillions on the technology NOW when 40% of the planet doesn't have daily access to clean water. The way I see it, Mars or alpha centauri aren't going anywhere in the next ten thousand years, so let's sort our priorities out here. There is a counter-argument to this, of course, which is that ecological degradation will render our planet unlivable much sooner, and we'd better spend the money on space research right now. This is a very BAD counter-argument, since the money would be spent much better on sorting out global warming and seriously converting to alternative energy sources, for example, which would then extend the 'life' of the planet. For the trillions that have been spent on the space programme, not only global poverty but a lot of the ecological degradation that goes on could be dealt with much more seriously. Not eradicated, perhaps, but apart from 1) little boys like playing with rockets and 2) links between the space program and the military-industrial complex, there are precious few good reasons for spending these gargantuan amounts of money for some considerable time.

[andymackem]

But how far does this get us in terms of autocracy versus democracy? To a very real extent, space travel, Rembrandt and the Pyramids don't have a hugely profound impact on day-to-day life, however thrilling they might be.

I've no direct experience of living outside of a democratic nation, and I suspect few of us have. Thus it's hard to judge.

There was a quality of life point made about Switzerland earlier which is broadly true, and supports the democracy=good standpoint. But I've read more than one account of living in Switzerland which suggests it is possibly the least interesting society on Earth (albeit not written by the Swiss themselves). 'Pretty vacant' springs to mind, backing up the democracy=mediocre view.

Also, doesn't Switzerland have certain other advantages in terms of its geography and its neighbours that countries in other parts of the world have historically not enjoyed? Belgium wouldn't have been invaded twice in the early 20th century if it hadn't been a flat, easily traversed plain between France and Germany (avoiding the rather large fortifications on the Franco-German border). No-one thought blitzkreig-ing through the Alps was a good idea.

Perhaps similar fortune might have enabled other countries (outside of Europe in particular) to enjoy similar comfort and prosperity, irrespective of their system of government.

[MrChris]

The reason Switzerland has been unscathed by recent wars at least is primarily economic - it's role as banker to the good, the bad and the ugly of the world. Which is why, like the Vatican, it's defence forces are a colourful irrelevance. Geographically it would present obstacles to an invading army, yes, but nothing that a few divisions of panzers or fokkers couldn't deal with. And it would then prove quite easy to defend.

I'm not sure what this tells us about the virtues of democracy either. I don't think we can assume that democracies are dull. You MIGHT be able to make a loose connection between proportional representation, stable coalitions, corporatism, and sclerotic government, though. But are democracies culturally dull? I don't think that statement is meaningful, really. If they are, it's probably got more to do with the banal consumerist capitalism that accompanies democracy in most cases.

[paint it black]

As it happens, we’re off to the moon soon, some kind of anniversary tour; hopefully the clangers will all be CGI this time around.

*bet more fuss is made of the return to, than the original conquering of. We’re like that now*

[straylight]

If just for the sake of argument you say that humans will one day live elsewhere in space & this makes it worthwhile spending all this dosh...

Who's going?

No-one that I would consider part of a 'we' I'm sure. And I'd love a bit of space travel so don't get me wrong. It's just I have no great stake in the future anyway (kept all my rubbish DNA to myself) but even less so if it's defined by who NASA lets into space.

I'd rather sort out the problems down here first. That's where I feel some common humanity, not some space colony in the future.