Space exploration?

Submitted by Zazaban on 15 July, 2008 - 01:49.

I state right away that I'm a space geek. I have space.com bookmarked and check frequently for updates. I know this stuff like terraforming and Sagittarius A* refer to. The idea of space colonization almost causes me to orgasm. Now, I'm wondering how this sort of thing would be organized in an anarchist society. I am very displeased with the idea that it simply won't happen, that we'll simply stay tied to this rock for the remainder of our existence. So, how would it work? I figure that people would have to make an agreement of sorts that they know what will happen if they do not pull their weight. I'm certain that it can be done without a whole lot of hierarchy, but some may be necessary for manned travel, as it would count as a very special case, at least in the early years.

15 July, 2008 - 04:55

Anti-hierarchy should not be a moral obligation. Meaning this: if space exploration is only possible through hierarchical organization, that is not an argument against it. If people are willing to submit to a hierarchy in order to travel through space, and this involves no economic exploitation, then who gives a shit?

The only question is: will people want to use the time and material goods of society in order to implement it? If designing a space program is something that would have to be forced on people, then obviously it won't happen. Namely because that would be impossible.

So, when there comes a time for you and your friends to propose the development of a space program (or keep the current ones running), figure out how much of the resources at our disposal it will require and give everybody else the details and I'm sure we'll all be happy to talk about it for a while and decide something. Why should it be any different from any other idea? Meaning: large-scale decision-making will most likely take place in a regular, pre-determined way, and the particular decisions will always fall under whatever general process that may be. Space geek stuff included. Get it?

Also, for now, this isn't something that you should really concern yourself with... even if anyone could tell you that space travel will not happen in a post-revolutionary society (How could they? They simply don't know), that is no refutation of the criticism of capitalism, which is the entire reason why we're revolutionaries. It has nothing to do with space travel or anything else like that. Therefore my advice is to not worry about it too much. That is, UNLESS you would rather have a capitalism WITH space travel than a communism WITHOUT space travel. In which case, your criticism of capitalism is not very good and you should just focus on your space stuff and be done with all this pointless anti-capitalism that is keeping you here on this "rock" for the remainder of your existence.

15 July, 2008 - 08:31
Zazaban wrote:
I figure that people would have to make an agreement of sorts that they know what will happen if they do not pull their weight.

As anarchists we practice this anyway.

16 July, 2008 - 01:22

Z

I am a space geek too!

I am sure space colonization will happen one day and how it is worked out from an anarcho pov should be no different to any other form of societal organisation. I do feel we need to get our house in order on earth first tho before transporting all our issues and probs into space! smile As we do not yet have the technology atm, i am hoping that by the time we do (and the bloody cynics need to know a scientific breakthrough can happen anytime! ) we will be in a position to maximise this opportunity for the good of all.

Discipline will be even easier than on earth - if someone is proving to be a recalcitrant prick we can just chuck them out of the space dome or whatever. No probs wink

Love

LW XX

PS do you like the bit in "Hitch Hikers Guide" when the Golgafrinchans sent all the hairdressers and phone santisisers to colonise a new planet "first" in order to get rid of them and then all died out as a result of a virus caused by dirty phones lol - food for thought there, comrade. Amazing. cool

16 July, 2008 - 06:08
Lone Wolf wrote:
PS do you like the bit in "Hitch Hikers Guide" when the Golgafrinchans sent all the hairdressers and phone santisisers to colonise a new planet "first" in order to get rid of them and then all died out as a result of a virus caused by dirty phones lol - food for thought there, comrade. Amazing. cool

Indeed it is. Remember, we are those Golgafrinchans.

16 July, 2008 - 07:26
Zazaban wrote:
I state right away that I'm a space geek. I have space.com bookmarked and check frequently for updates. I know this stuff like terraforming and Sagittarius A* refer to. The idea of space colonization almost causes me to orgasm. Now, I'm wondering how this sort of thing would be organized in an anarchist society. I am very displeased with the idea that it simply won't happen, that we'll simply stay tied to this rock for the remainder of our existence. So, how would it work? I figure that people would have to make an agreement of sorts that they know what will happen if they do not pull their weight. I'm certain that it can be done without a whole lot of hierarchy, but some may be necessary for manned travel, as it would count as a very special case, at least in the early years.

Well whats currently holding back mars missions and so on is the costs of space exploration, and also the fact that many scientists who would be interested in such a field are otherwise engagedin building sattelite surviellance systems and weapons technology. Hence the space program is mostly aimed at building weapons platforms, delivering nukes and so on. So to be honest i'd debate the idea that hierarchy is going to get us into space, i mean quite frankly it hasn't exactly worked so far.
If you have a monetary economy and nationalist competetion its pretty much going to mean your struggling to get off the ground beyond a few publicity stunts. I mean we went to the moon, haven't been back there recently have we? Not to mention the ongoing fiasco of space station freedom which just seems to be both a publicity stunt and a nice little earner for quite a lot of people whose interests are basically in dragging the project out as long as possible so they can get paid and retire before the shit hits the fan.

If anough people look up at the stars and want to go there, then we'll have space exploration in the ''anarchist utopia of the future'' as we do now, point is under anarchism it won;t be held back by financial costs and national interests. Though no doubt it will be tempered by the reality of what resources people are prepared to devote toit, as you'd imagine would eb the case in any rational society.

16 July, 2008 - 09:15
Eduard Rothe/IS #12 wrote:
12

Humanity will enter into space to make the universe the playground of the last revolt: the revolt that will go against the limitations imposed by nature. Once the walls have been smashed that now separate people from science, the conquest of space will no longer be an economic or military “promotional” gimmick, but the blossoming of human freedoms and fulfillments, attained by a race of gods. We will not enter into space as employees of an astronautic administration or as “volunteers” of a state project, but as masters without slaves reviewing their domains: the entire universe pillaged for the workers councils.

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/12.space.htm

Does anyone know anything about Rothe? I've never dug up anything apart from a few very scattered references...

But yeah - less ecstatically - if we want it we'll do it. just got to build our way out of ecocollapse first...

16 July, 2008 - 09:30

btw the theme of the next Kino Fist (London based communist film collective) meeting is 'Red Space' - details below. If you can't get along, they'll be putting up the articles from the pamphlets they pass round at the event (normally three pretty interesting, medium-length pieces) on their blog in the next few weeks.

Sunday 2pm for c. 2.30 start, E:vent Gallery, Bethnal Green, £2 for films and magazine.

Short: 'Inter-Planetary Revolution' (1924)
Long: Aelita (1924)
.................................
Short: 'Ajapeegel' by Jeremy Millar (2007)
Long: Red Planet Mars (1952)

16 July, 2008 - 19:52

What worried me was that there was a lot of talk on Infoshop that space exploration would be infeasible in an anarchist world. It should have occurred to me that it was Infoshop. Thanks.

16 July, 2008 - 20:26
si wrote:
Eduard Rothe/IS #12 wrote:
12

Humanity will enter into space to make the universe the playground of the last revolt: the revolt that will go against the limitations imposed by nature. Once the walls have been smashed that now separate people from science, the conquest of space will no longer be an economic or military “promotional” gimmick, but the blossoming of human freedoms and fulfillments, attained by a race of gods. We will not enter into space as employees of an astronautic administration or as “volunteers” of a state project, but as masters without slaves reviewing their domains: the entire universe pillaged for the workers councils.

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/12.space.htm

Does anyone know anything about Rothe? I've never dug up anything apart from a few very scattered references...

But yeah - less ecstatically - if we want it we'll do it. just got to build our way out of ecocollapse first...

Haha I remember when i read that article i thought that it was a superb pisstake of the S.I.!

17 July, 2008 - 01:34
Zazaban wrote:
What worried me was that there was a lot of talk on Infoshop that space exploration would be infeasible in an anarchist world. It should have occurred to me that it was Infoshop. Thanks.

Hehe, whos got time for space-exploration in between berry-pickin' and sweeping those damn leaves out of the old hole in the dirt. smile

17 July, 2008 - 01:38
Zazaban wrote:
What worried me was that there was a lot of talk on Infoshop that space exploration would be infeasible in an anarchist world. It should have occurred to me that it was Infoshop. Thanks.

For the sake of argument let's say that it is infeasible. Would you give up your political positions?

17 July, 2008 - 02:01

man bill, everything you write makes you sound like an asshole.

17 July, 2008 - 02:04

why couldn't there be space exploration without hierarchy? because mission control is somehow hierarchically superior to the astronaut?
littering other planets is asinine, and people are starving here. if you have big money you can go to space, but it'll probably always require a lot of pollution... it would be great if there were some way to propel a rocket beyond the atmosphere without it spewing tons of polluting crap up into it, but i can't think of any... maybe hydrogen power or something...

17 July, 2008 - 02:06
si wrote:
btw the theme of the next Kino Fist (London based communist film collective) meeting is 'Red Space' - details below. If you can't get along, they'll be putting up the articles from the pamphlets they pass round at the event (normally three pretty interesting, medium-length pieces) on their blog in the next few weeks.

Sunday 2pm for c. 2.30 start, E:vent Gallery, Bethnal Green, £2 for films and magazine.

Short: 'Inter-Planetary Revolution' (1924)
Long: Aelita (1924)
.................................
Short: 'Ajapeegel' by Jeremy Millar (2007)
Long: Red Planet Mars (1952)

Hey thanks for posting this - looks amazing!!!

Doubt if i can make it, but awesome stuff.

Atm tho, when i click on the link, i get an Error 404 message, that is my least favourite error. neutral

Perhaps you could check the link?? or maybe it is a site prob...

Love

LW XX

17 July, 2008 - 02:21
BillJ wrote:
Zazaban wrote:
What worried me was that there was a lot of talk on Infoshop that space exploration would be infeasible in an anarchist world. It should have occurred to me that it was Infoshop. Thanks.

For the sake of argument let's say that it is infeasible. Would you give up your political positions?

Well, it would at the very least suck a lot. Also, it would be depressing watching Earth's resources get used up with no means of saving us because it would involve 'oppressive measures.'

17 July, 2008 - 02:52
anarchyjordan wrote:
man bill, everything you write makes you sound like an asshole.

Is this meant to be a topic of discussion? Why is whether I'm an asshole or not relevant to anything? Being a nice guy doesn't make someone any more correct, and being an asshole doesn't make anyone less correct. All that matters is whether they are actually correct or not. So please explain why me sounding like an asshole matters.

17 July, 2008 - 02:56

Well, it would at the very least suck a lot. Also, it would be depressing watching Earth's resources get used up with no means of saving us because it would involve 'oppressive measures.'

This is pretty silly. Do you really think in a post-revolutionary people would be so unreasonable as to refuse to agree on space colonization or whatever else if it were truly necessary? All it would require is a rational argument...

17 July, 2008 - 08:50
si wrote:

Sunday 2pm for c. 2.30 start, E:vent Gallery, Bethnal Green, £2 for films and magazine.

Short: 'Inter-Planetary Revolution' (1924)
Long: Aelita (1924)
.................................
Short: 'Ajapeegel' by Jeremy Millar (2007)
Long: Red Planet Mars (1952)

sick, how longs that likely to last for all in all? have a depressing feeling i'm not gonna be able to make it tho

17 July, 2008 - 08:59

i don't know, you just seem kinda authoritarian. and no, all that matters isn't whether you're "correct." what makes it correct? that marx agrees?
nothing's true. if it sounds nice thought people will like you and then follow you so you can ride the popular wave to power like lenin or something.

17 July, 2008 - 09:04

fuck it man, i'm already in outer space. yippie!
honky america and phony russia/china sending litter out into the great black beyond just expresses their desire to penetrate things (the unknown). got to get laid more...
i don't know, the whole thing with putting our junk onto other planets too is just too much when you consider the amount of waste the system needs to go on, even without the immense waste of say, a war or space program -- like just plastic bottles everywhere, wrappers, cigarette butts, industrial toxins, metals, computer related crap (extremely bad for the environment) etc. civilization is just like that, this terrible disease that just lays waste to everything

17 July, 2008 - 09:14
BillJ wrote:
Zazaban wrote:
What worried me was that there was a lot of talk on Infoshop that space exploration would be infeasible in an anarchist world. It should have occurred to me that it was Infoshop. Thanks.

For the sake of argument let's say that it is infeasible. Would you give up your political positions?

If the choice was for some bizarre reason between a sort of technologically backward stagnant form of socialism or technological progression in a capitalist society then i'd probably have a lot of sympathies for the latter.
Point is that that is in reality an artificial choice generally put across by reductionists and primmos of all stripes and is sounds like an empty echo of capitalist rhetoric itself; since in fact anarchism is all about unfettered human creativity and the developement technology for the benefit of humanity, whereas capitalism is in fact the stagnant ideology holding back progress

17 July, 2008 - 11:09
anarchyjordan wrote:
littering other planets is asinine, and people are starving here. if you have big money you can go to space, but it'll probably always require a lot of pollution... it would be great if there were some way to propel a rocket beyond the atmosphere without it spewing tons of polluting crap up into it, but i can't think of any... maybe hydrogen power or something...

Not sure if you'd be interested, but a few ideas get floated about generally non-polluting methods of space travel, and one that caught my attention was the concept of the space elevator proposed by Y N Artsutanov in 1960 in Pravda. I don' have the original text, but since then others have cottoned onto the idea. It's explained quite nicely and simply in Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen's Science of the Discworld.

i don't see the problem in discussing a future that does not yet exist - Arthur C. Clarke did it a lot, and some of his descriptions of fictional forms inspired actual forms. We need to tell ourselves 'stories' to shape how we approach the future so we try to make it what we want - which is pretty much what all of us on here do through these discussions.

17 July, 2008 - 11:50
anarchyjordan wrote:
littering other planets is asinine, and people are starving here. if you have big money you can go to space, but it'll probably always require a lot of pollution... it would be great if there were some way to propel a rocket beyond the atmosphere without it spewing tons of polluting crap up into it, but i can't think of any... maybe hydrogen power or something...

This is the first rocket i looked up, and at least some of the stages are powered with hydrogen, although is guess the hydrogen is generated from oil, and i wouldnt really call a disposable rocket envirometaly friendly or efficient, whatever it was powered by.

dee wrote:
Not sure if you'd be interested, but a few ideas get floated about generally non-polluting methods of space travel, and one that caught my attention was the concept of the space elevator proposed by Y N Artsutanov in 1960 in Pravda. I don' have the original text, but since then others have cottoned onto the idea. It's explained quite nicely and simply in Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen's Science of the Discworld.

A space elevator would be much better, I liked that book to.

17 July, 2008 - 13:10

yeah - a non-science bod like me managed to understand most of the ideas they talked about.

17 July, 2008 - 18:39

I'm reading through Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson at the minute. It's basically about the people (well the governments) of Earth coming to an understanding that they've pretty much destroyed Earth and need to colonise Mars. Anyway, they send up a team of 100 to go through the initial set-up of a colony. But all these political factions divide out over the voyage and subsequent arrival. They split into the conservatives who want to stick by all the rules set for them by the Earth council. Then there's the Anarchists/Communists/Socialists (basically they're made out to have very left wing views, no official labels mentioned so far) who decide they would rather judge things between themselves. There's also the 'Reds' who believe that Mars should be left the way it is and not terraformed etc.

Anyways, I still have to finish it. But it should be interesting to see how things pan out between the different political factions in it.

In relation to the thread starters comments. Do you think the Federation in Star Trek would be an acceptable form of hierarchy for early space travel?

Apologies about the science fiction references.

17 July, 2008 - 18:46

Tree

Have heard good things about Red Mars... cool

Don't apologise for the sci-fi refs... most scientific breakthroughs are made by those who were big fans of the genre in their youth, and were not only inspired by it, but went on to invent technologies directly based on what they saw and read..

The Fed as an acceptable form of hierarchy in ST - yeah, the Fed were cool at first in the early days of ST, but then they got a bit pompous and up themselves and corruptible.. as happens IRL. (Am drinking from a Fed mug atm!!)

But other Feds like the one in Blake's 7 - bad, bad Fed. twisted

Love

LW XX

17 July, 2008 - 22:35

I've never watched Blake's, maybe a bit before my time. As for the ST Fed, yeah they did get a bit cocky.

I've always been intrigued by the politics in Star Trek. I'm not sure whether the fed are supposed to be the idealistic version of liberalism or some strange view of a communistic society. I suppose you could interpret whatever you wanted from it. Though when Earth is taken into consideration, in the Star Trek world, money and poverty has been abolished and technology has meant the end of work. The only goal they see fit is to explore the universe to 'better' humankind (sic as this term excludes other alien lifeforms). They also have plenty of colonies going on too, based on some form of mutualism as far as I can tell.

17 July, 2008 - 23:00
cantdocartwheels wrote:
si wrote:

Sunday 2pm for c. 2.30 start, E:vent Gallery, Bethnal Green, £2 for films and magazine.

Short: 'Inter-Planetary Revolution' (1924)
Long: Aelita (1924)
.................................
Short: 'Ajapeegel' by Jeremy Millar (2007)
Long: Red Planet Mars (1952)

sick, how longs that likely to last for all in all? have a depressing feeling i'm not gonna be able to make it tho

not sure, oddly enough I've never made it to one of their (fairly irregular) meetings. You could email wearekinofist ****at **** gmail.com, and maybe (it being late in the day) copy it to Infinite Thought (infinitethought ****at **** hotmail.co.uk), who's involved.

Lone Wolf wrote:
Atm tho, when i click on the link, i get an Error 404 message, that is my least favourite error. neutral

Perhaps you could check the link?? or maybe it is a site prob...

Love

LW XX

it's a site problem I think (catch?) The url is kinofist.blogspot.com but it was rendered by the site as a link to libcom.org/theory/....kinofist.blogspot.com, natch.

s.

18 July, 2008 - 01:26
anarchyjordan wrote:
i don't know, you just seem kinda authoritarian. and no, all that matters isn't whether you're "correct." what makes it correct? that marx agrees?
nothing's true. if it sounds nice thought people will like you and then follow you so you can ride the popular wave to power like lenin or something.

Wow you must be the dumbest person on this board. If "nothing's true" then you must realize the meaningless of that very statement. You are claiming that it is true that nothing is true. Or maybe you're saying it's not true that nothing is true? Try again, you fucking retard.

Also whether or not I "seem authoritarian" doesn't make any difference to how correct or incorrect I may be. In any case, I can plainly see that being correct isn't any of your concern, namely because you never are.

18 July, 2008 - 01:38

i claim that it is true that truth is a false idea, and that what is considered false is often true.
but i'm a fucking retard so i don't know, maybe everything's true, or at least that if you believe it, it's true to you.
authoritarians suck trotskyballs