Ok SDSDS, quick, make a copy of this thread. If Blackstar ever writes his story and sells it as a movie for 1 000 000 $. we can sue the pants off him for prior art
At the end of the book, the Weinersmiths complain about how critics are treated by space advocatesQuoteWe believe a functioning scientific community should welcome dissent that shows up with citations, but in the space-settlement community, people with negative views about aspects of space settlement are sometimes called idiots or “anti-human” or worse.Putting aside the fact that they themselves have not shown up with proper citations, perhaps they should reexamine their own style of discussion before questioning others in this regard? For instance, they suggest people might “hate” their conclusions, rather than disagree with them or find flaw in them - as if their critics must only be driven by emotion.The subtitle of this book really does set the tone - the authors clearly come across as believing they are the first people to really think about these topics. Repeatedly it comes across that they simply haven’t read what people have already written on a topic. For instance, in their response to the first part of this review, they asserted that settlement of Low Earth Orbit couldn’t be done. There is an entire literature on this that they appear to have missed - notably The High Frontier: An Easier Way by Tom Marotta and Al Globus.The future they advocates is a form of highly bureaucratic socialism across the entire solar system. A place where you must ask for permission to do anything of significance, rather than the state (or world government as the Weinersmiths prefer) needing a reason to stop you. All justified by an unreasonable fear that someone somewhere might turn evil and wipe out humanity if they are not continuously monitored and controlled - a sort of perversion of the harm principle where “your rights end where my neuroses begin”. Those offering alternate visions are dismissed as “libertarian” - used here as a slur, and referring to more or less anybody who believes in private property.Overall, A City on Mars is a disappointment - its good for any advocacy group to have critics, in order to make sure they aren’t simply reinforcing their own errors and to sharpen their arguments, but I haven’t found good criticism here. The authors have obviously spent a lot of time researching things of interest to them (space toilet antics for instance) but skipped significant parts of the research, and have clearly not tested their own argumentation against critics.I’ve not had much fun with this review (hence why I took so long to get the last part out). It is unfortunate that the controversy surrounding Elon Musk has given this sort of book fertile ground in the media, who don’t push back against it at all. Hopefully material progress in space will simply make it redundant in a few years.
We believe a functioning scientific community should welcome dissent that shows up with citations, but in the space-settlement community, people with negative views about aspects of space settlement are sometimes called idiots or “anti-human” or worse.
Quote from: sdsds on 01/16/2024 07:34 pmYes, clearly the Soylent Green comment should have included a winky-face emoticon. The deeper point about what happens to settlers whose medical condition prevents them from contributing directly to production of the goods and services needed at the settlement is still open. Some likely feel they should be returned to Earth for care. Perhaps some even feel every early settlement inhabitant should rotate through a tour of duty and then return to Earth.On a side note, the non-edible biomass presents ethical issues for vegans! Can it also be fed to worms or something and thus provide additional enriched soil for expanded agriculture?You guys have given me the seeds of a great story: Elon Musk sets up a colony on Mars to serve as a retirement community (a great idea suggested in this very thread!). Starships fly to Mars filled with rich retirees, who think that they're going to live out their golden years on Mars.Except... when they arrive, they are immediately turned into food for the real settlers.I'm copyrighting this story.
Yes, clearly the Soylent Green comment should have included a winky-face emoticon. The deeper point about what happens to settlers whose medical condition prevents them from contributing directly to production of the goods and services needed at the settlement is still open. Some likely feel they should be returned to Earth for care. Perhaps some even feel every early settlement inhabitant should rotate through a tour of duty and then return to Earth.On a side note, the non-edible biomass presents ethical issues for vegans! Can it also be fed to worms or something and thus provide additional enriched soil for expanded agriculture?
