I've started hearing that phrase over the last few weeks. We apparently feel we are entitled to cheap food, cheap petrol and a generally higher standard of living than the rest of the world. And when we feel that slipping... well we aren’t happy campers. I mention it here because many of the great Sci-fi writers included the paranoia of the day in their stories. I could slip this prevailing attitude into a short.
Tracy
America would be great if it wasn't for all the Americans
unforchently there is, go to Afghainastain (i spelled that wrong)and see for your self. and the sad thing is they dont realy do anything to change that.
almost home
RFW2nd
An example, here in south florida, they closed the land fills and are now using the garbage stream to provide electricity.
I have read about processes that turn plastic in to natural gas which then is either burned or reprocessed into plastic. Locally, they skip the cracking process and make fuel out of it directly, along with everything else.
You will find that most countries would love to have our standard of living. Our poor live better than their high middle class people do.
In my group, we say, instead, that America would be much better without the American Government (read as: return to the letter of the constitution).
One way to design your governments in your story, is to decide how much property rights do the people have.
Governments where there are no property rights are ones where people are not much better than slaves for the lords. The societies around the world with no property rights, where the government has the right to take anything they want, are stuck in primative times where people scrape a living from the land.
Governments where people have the right to buy and sell property little or no governmental interfearance or confinscation of property as taxes or graft, the civilizations are advanced, techological, powerful, with all sorts of new inventions appearing all the time.
The reason for this is that when the powers to be come by and steal you blind every year, you are not going to put a lot of effort in getting ahead. It is not worth it. It will be taken from you anyway. Instead, you will make just enough an no more. If you can profit from your labor, you are going to make more so you can profit from your labor more.
One can show this by having the local lord appear in force and empty your grain storage (especially after a bad year) as winter approaches, as a tax payment, making it look like your family might starve this winter.
Look around at the counties of the world. The easier it is to open a business, the better their standard of living will be. Years ago, before India made some recent changes, It took over a year to get permission to start a business. In America, it might only take a few weeks to get permission from the government to start a business. The quicker one can start a business, the more people will be in their own businesses. That next essentual product that everybody desparately needs might depend on how soon one can get a business running.
In a story, you might have your character's father sitting doing paperwork. He is in his second year of trying to get permission to start a business, thinking about giving up, not being worth the effort.
On the other hand, one might show a space based society where there are no diseases, people are rebuilt from serious injuries, Paupers live better than what the visitors thought the kings or super rich could live. Everybody is in their own business, those doing physical labor contract out their services to the highest bidder or best deal and are paid well according to their abilities. One invents something new, it is protected from others making the same thing with patent protection. One comes up with an idea and writes it down, it is copyrighted and other than fair use provisions, one is paid for use.
An american would be as stunned with this society as some primative from a dirt hole country would be of America.
Government acts strictly as a brake. It can only say stop, don't do that. Taxation stops activities that are taxed, such as making more money. laws prevent actions.
Of course, people will do what they can to get around the "stops" to improve their conditions.
An example, Years ago, the government fixed the prices of certain cuts of meat. It did not matter what the meats cost, the government decided that they could not be sold for more. The butchers cut the meats differently, gave them a new name, and sold them for what they were worth. They found a way around the laws. (BTW, a federal government following the American constitution would not have the power to pass such laws)
Sorry for the rambling.
Edited to note about natural resources. People are the natural resource. Consider, Sand. there is no shortage of sand. Sand in every where. It is a problem in some areas. Sand though, makes glass and computer chips. again, it is the people that are the natural resource, not the raw materials.
[This message has been edited by rstegman (edited April 09, 2008).]
I'll avoid talking politics at length, but...stories of any particular era or generation of course reflect what's going on in the world around them. In science fiction, you had high optimism ("we'll solve and fix everyting") of the twenties, giving way to the depression of the thirties ("things will only get worse"), then into a practical optimism of the forties ("we're in this thing to win it, and we will"), into the paranoia of the fifties ("everything is against me"), to the turmoil of the sixties ("we'll tear this down and start it over"), through the cool-down and heat-up of the seventies ("things are pretty bad and we have to live through them"), to the bitterness-tinged-with-optimism of the eighties ("things are pretty bad but things will be better when we live through them"), down to the renewed paranoia of the nineties ("things are out to get us for reasons of their own.") (I'm not up on what it is currently so I leave that out.)
I exaggerate the periods here...really, you can find every one of these kind of stories in every decade...
You are wrong, try to think beyond the agit-prop.
quote:
We are actually the most efficiant in resource use than any other country.
Really? If you're so sure, prove it. I'll save you the researching: check out how Northern European countries do their ecology thing. Check out CO2 production and gas consumption for American cars compared to cars produced elsewhere. Tell me where the efficient resource management is, because I fail to see it.
quote:
You will find that most countries would love to have our standard of living. Our poor live better than their high middle class people do.
I beg to differ. Have you ever lived outside the US? I'd say that your middle class lives worse than our poor. At least our poor have health care. College education is cheap enough that almost everyone can afford it and there are grants for those who can't. Just by being born in Spain, I expect to live five years longer than you.
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=117&country=US#rowUS
My other country isn't perfect, but don't go tauting your USness when you don't know what you're talking about.
quote:
One way to design your governments in your story, is to decide how much property rights do the people have.
Governments where there are no property rights are ones where people are not much better than slaves for the lords. The societies around the world with no property rights, where the government has the right to take anything they want, are stuck in primative times where people scrape a living from the land.
Bad bad commies! They're out to get us!
Take a hint: the cold war is over. Bush said so.
One last point. I'm guessing you're American and that you were educated in the US. Go back to your post, check your spelling and grammar. If you can't even get your own language right, I doubt you have the moral authority to pan the rest of the World.
Also that Robert summed up very well the psychologies of every era/decade in the US.
Sara, I appreciate your oppinion, but you did not need to resort to flaming:
qoute
One last point. I'm guessing you're American and that you were educated in the US. Go back to your post, check your spelling and grammar. If you can't even get your own language right, I doubt you have the moral authority to pan the rest of the World.
And, Sara, there is a reason why English is the international trade language. Americans and Englishmen have very good reasons to be proud of their countries. I am proud of mine everyday.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited April 09, 2008).]
quote:
I would have to say that rstegman is right, at least 99.96%.
Provide evidence, or at least some reasoning behind that statement, please.
quote:
Sara, I appreciate your oppinion, but you did not need to resort to flaming:
qoute
One last point. I'm guessing you're American and that you were educated in the US. Go back to your post, check your spelling and grammar. If you can't even get your own language right, I doubt you have the moral authority to pan the rest of the World.
Asking someone to respect others enough to apply a spell checker to their posts isn't starting a flame war. There are loads of reasons why spelling mistakes occur, but actually taking the time to try to minimize errors shows that someone is trying to engage others rather than blather on regardless of evidence.
quote:
And, Sara, there is a reason why English is the international trade language. Americans and Englishmen have very good reasons to be proud of their countries. I am proud of mine everyday.
I'm proud of both my countries. I'm OK with people being proud of theirs, but that doesn't give anyone the right to say things that just aren't true.
I hate to burst in and contradict you but your assumption that the United States is the "most efficient" is not consistent with what I have studied at length. As much as I'd like to believe you, I would guess somewhere else, like Denmark who doubled productive output without increasing energy use by even one watt, would be the winner of such a title.
Sara George,
rstegman is correct in his assessment that the "poor" of the United States live lavishly comfortable lives compared to the rest of the world. I don't believe he means anywhere in the world, for instance Japan and the EU wouldn't be on the list. But I have lived in South America, and I think various countries there and Africa would most certainly qualify.
[This message has been edited by Doctor (edited April 09, 2008).]
I can only assume that most of the reason for this is that Europe and Asia share a massive continent, and have other countries just a drive away. (Yes, we have Canada and Mexico nearby, but we--as a nation--look down on Mexican poverty, and don't really think of Canada as a separate country. I'm talking "literal thinking", not official position.) Spain (for example) touches Portugal and France, and is but a short hop from Morocco and Algeria. From France, it's a short hop to UK, and it touches Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland and Germany. Germany touches eight countries. USA and Australia, are unique in the limited number of countries they touch (Australia more so), and USA has been able to be self-sufficient almost from it's birth. In the early days, we didn't have to rely on as much trade as the other countries have.
In conclusion, there are positives and negatives to every country and their governmental systems. If a country's people weren't proud, if they hated their system enough, they would rebel. It's happened throughout history (and is not limited to any conctinent or country). And there is merit in study any counry's birth, rise, and the opinions of other countries about them, when creating a milieu or writing about a people.
It's easier/more natural to learn/hear things about the US, which is why people tend to know about it more often than the reverse. I don't think the reason is just that people in the US are so purely lazy and selfish and stupid by comparison, sorry, law of large numbers (statistics) would try to refute that... though there's the issue of a biased sample... but 300 million people is a pretty large sample notwithstanding.... I'm babbling again... but my points are these:
1. The US is not the most efficient country, though not sure where it ranks, it's unlikely to be number 1.
2. The living standards in the US are better than the average of the rest of the world, absolutely. There are exceptions, but most people in the world are worse off. I've read the ratio is something like 6 times as many resources per person than worldwide average, (this includes africa and south america.) That said, I'm not sure it's something to be proud of. It's like a fat kid eating a whole pizza, which he doesn't really need, sitting next to a scrawny, starving kid. And ignoring him, maybe letting him lick some grease drips from your plate.
3. I think the stereotype that Americans are just lazy and ignorant by nature is largely false. I think circumstances, which can be identified easily, are the cause of why people know about the US and people in the US might not know about you. The difference is global attention. This is a grossly disproportionate analogy, but it's the same idea, roughly, as why you might know something about Brad Pitt but he's unlikely to know anything about you. But if your roles were reversed, so would-be the flow of information.
Now, returning this topic to writing, for fear we'll lose a rather interesting thread; I think the answers to the above questions and discussion about the above points are quite valuable. The relationships between different political entities and how that effects the flow of information, or biases the views we might have about our own nations, is a valuable thing to consider when writing something. Especially when writing something political, especially involving multiple political entities.
For instance rstegman's pride about the US and Sara's instinct to reject his statements is an interesting event to think about. Clearly their viewpoints are different, therefore someone's information must not be correct. Why not? Is it because someone is ignorant because he's fat and happy? Or is it because someone else has been lied to/or bought into propaganda? I'm really sorry to use you two as an example, but my final point is this:
This topic is absolutely useful for a writer, especial with regard to world building, so please don't shut this topic down.
That said, I'm curious what others think about my points above, all of them. Maybe my own viewpoint is warped by the window of my existence.
On a philosophical note, I doubt you're a programmer, but on occasion, in programming, two commands will exist that will seem to contradict. Or rather, two events are trying to happen at the same time and they cannot. The solution, to prevent a crash, is to assign priority.
My question to you is, as good as property rights are, should they take priority over any kind of rights? What about human rights? Individual rights?
The reason I bring it up is because there appears to be something of a contradiction. (And yes this is useful for stories for assigning motivations behind various political groups) The idea of a very fundamental and simple government, as you seem to want, isn't consistent with a government that protects an individual's right to... say ride on the front of the bus, or drink from the same fountain, vote, or not be sexually abused. Because, you see, if property rights are the most prioritized right then business owners, etc (property owners) have absolute domain on their land. And anyone there happens to be at their mercy. Which can disadvantage certain groups disproportionately, for instance the poor, minorities, etc.
The trouble is to "solve" these problems requires some level of government intervenability (is that a word?)
I've raised this argument with several "Ron Paul types" (who seem, to me, to be advocating the same thing as you) and I haven't found anyone who thought it was worth their time to consider this and give me a thoughtful answer.
But that aside, I think that very conflict, individual rights vs property rights, would be/could be an awesome basis for a fictional conflict I could write about.
I think I have some insights on this topic, considering that I have lived in the least developed country in the world, according to the United Nations Human Development Index. Please find link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
You might notice that the United States isn't even in the top 10...
But back to my experience... Yup, Sierra Leone would be #177 out of 177. I served there as a Peace Corps Volunteer from 1992 to 1994. At that time, it was #176 out of 177. Looks like the poor keep getting poorer.
However, the reason that the poor keep getting poorer in Sierra Leone, is because American Companies (filled with that amazing zeal to make the almighty dollar), came in and bought all the land that had any likelihood of having natural resources.
In 1984, when Sierra Rutile Corporation http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-0000484766-page.html first bought land from the Mende chiefs, the Sierra Leone "Leone" (currency) traded on an even exchange of 1 dollar for 1 Leone. When I was there in 1992, after the cold war ended and America didn't need titanium to build ICBMs anymore (Rutile = Titanium Dioxide = Titanium Ore), the value of the Leone had fallen to 1 dollar to 480 Leones. That would be a valuative deflation of 48,000%. When I left in 1994, just as the war was starting to get kicked off, the Leone traded at 1 dollar to 860 Leones. As of this writing, the Leone currently exchanges at 1 dollar to 2,929 Leones. But hey, at least they get to own their own land...
Oh, yeah. Most "entitled" Americans couldn't find Sierra Leone on a map if I paid them, even considering that it was featured as the setting in a recent blockbuster film (Blood Diamond). It is just south of Guinea. Oh, sorry, that probably didn't help. It's on the west coast of Africa, between Guinea and Liberia, about 500 miles south and east of Dakar, Senegal, which is the western-most point of Africa. If this still doesn't ring a bell, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Now, as to that whole American entitlement thing... some of the more... agitprop statements above (to borrow a word from Sara) are probably the best example and characterization of the concept of American entitlement.
"We're the best."
"Our government is the best (that's why we're currently exporting democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, isn't it?)"
Oh, wait... "Our government is the best, except when it charges ME money and then gives that money to somebody else, you know, who isn't ME."
"We are the best at protecting the environment." ROFLMAO! We wish.
"We are the only place that comes up with inventions, technologies, medical procedures, intellectual research, or any other value-added application conceived of by man (women, not so much)."
So, Tracy, if you want to depict the concept of American entitlement, my recommendation is that you ask rstegman for his sources, or watch Fox News, or both.
[This message has been edited by Igwiz (edited April 09, 2008).]
I was under the impression that I was providing both evidence and contextual explanation of some of those examples (based on Sara's request to rstegman for sources, regarding facts rather than opinions/assumptions).
We are writers; this top down view should be easy for us.
I can only speak with authority about the UK but I suspect much of Europe (in which I’ve traveled extensively and have several resident friends) is similar. In the 70’s it used to be the case that Europeans were far more aware of the world than your average American. That however has now reversed in my experience. With the advent of multiple competing 24/7 cable news networks and the Internet many people are very well informed of what’s happening in the world around them. Every channel of information has its bent, but when you balance them out you get a decent picture of reality.
Here’s my problem with Britain: the BBC. Used to be great, 20 odd years ago. Now… not so much. Listening to the BBC on anything to do with the US is like turning on Foxnews to find out about the DNC. (For you Europeans, Foxnews is staunchly Republican and CNN staunchly Democratic and they spin most everything as subtly as possible whilst both claiming objective reporting.) Europeans are being systematically brainwashed to despise everything American, mostly through outright deceptive or speculative reporting and picking only the ultra-negative stories to report. For example, a few years ago, a long time friend who is a very successful developer from the UK was visiting me in California and he started trying to help me see that the US had invaded Iraq simply to steal the oil. I was dumbfounded that someone as intelligent as this wealthy man could believe this. Then I thought he must mean that the vulnerability of the oil from the region was a motivating factor, which I would agree with. Nope. He firmly believed that the US actually intended to steal the oil – to simply take ownership of Iraq’s oil resources and profit from it – that this was oil-man Bush’s sole motive.
If you ask the average European on the street what they believe the American motive for the Iraq war actually is – very few will say they believe that this country was willing to lay down their lives, almost break their economy and spurn the rage of millions of Muslims simply to liberate a few million people from tyranny. Very few would believe that. No no no, it has to be greed in some form or another – it has to be American arrogance. It’s not the Europeans fault, its what has been told to them by their media – and why would the media spin the truth?? And all the nationalism that is brainwashed into every child in every country on the planet only makes thing far worse. We all become inclined to start grandstanding for our respective National pride and that generally plays right into the hand of such propaganda.
Getting back to literature. Countries are like competing companies to me. The employees are all humans. All are in the same market that needs all the players to function. Do you remember when you were a kid and you would say “I wish I had all the money in the world” without quite comprehending that if you did in fact have all the money in the world it wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on because the world economy would instantly collapse. Where was I going with that? Not quite sure but it is interesting times we live in. I guess, just that we are all the same and need each other no matter which company we work for.
Bent tree recently sent me a rough draft of a story in which the old and new human settlers of another planet regarded each other with suspicion and immediately started drawing lines in the dirt and being less than kind to each other. I thought it a good story plot. Would men be so foolish as to make the same mistakes over and over as they colonized the planets?
Tracy
I don't know that politics discussed in this manner is quite appropriate material for Hatrack, regardless of how tangentially you would like to associate it with your current WIP, or an idea you've had in your head recently. Issues such as political affiliation, national interest, economic forecasts, and international relations are often fraught with emotion and are lightning rods for closed-minded argument. I suggest we all move on.
That said, with baited breath I await the moment when a fight breaks out and SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED comes in and lays the law down.
Jayson Merryfield
Secondly, this has noting to do with writing. If "I could use this in a short story" is enough justification, then nothing is off limits.
Lock it, move on with life.
quote:
And there is merit in study any counry's birth, rise, and the opinions of other countries about them, when creating a milieu or writing about a people.
And Tracy said
quote:
We are writers; this top down view should be easy for us.
quote:
Bent tree recently sent me a rough draft of a story in which the old and new human settlers of another planet regarded each other with suspicion and immediately started drawing lines in the dirt and being less than kind to each other. I thought it a good story plot. Would men be so foolish as to make the same mistakes over and over as they colonized the planets?
That's how it relates to writing. 
Also, I believe one of the keys to learning to develop quality characters and effectively utilize dialogue for those characters is to hear different, heart-felt opinions from disparate voices.
While I might vociferously disagree with many of the opinions stated here, they are providing me with a certain sense... a cadence, that allows me to better see how a character of the same convictions would argue similar points.
I think it's easy to forget how diverse opinions can run on both sides of any issue, and one (specifically ME) can easily get lulled into the perspective that, "everybody thinks like I do..."
So, I think this has a lot to do with writing. It's just not the mechanics of the craft. It's the flavor, the approach, the shadings. And, in my humble opinion, those shadings are what make good writing...
[This message has been edited by Igwiz (edited April 09, 2008).]
The majority of this thread which is nothing but nationalist insults (on both sides) traded back and forth seem to not. Then I've been guilty of the same a time or two so I won't be too harsh on the subject.
I added examples of how what I said could be used in stories.
I will say that many of the criticisms of my note was valid. Some were not. I made some mistakes and got some things wrong, I got other things Right, some in spite of popular opinions.
First off, Geniuses cannot spell........ This browser has a spell check. Now I can get my magic right....
Government provides and controls education in the United States. Government molds the children into good little supporters of the government. It is in the best interest of the government for them to be unable to understand what the government is doing wrong, That is why you hear stories where children cannot find the world on the globe but can name every actor or actress who is in the news. It is why public news has so much entertainment news involved. (Fox news is rather liberal for me).
Consider a highly educated alien coming to the planet and finding a society that knows the activities of the entertainment field in detail and can list everything each celebrity has done over the past year, but has no concept that they even have a government.
When I was writing about cleaning up pollution, I was thinking of industry and how in the past thirty years, we have scrubbed our wastes from the air, have increased efficiencies of our factories.
As for efficiency of cars, look at the gas milege of cars of similar size and class over the past thirty years. Also look at the increase of the costs of repairs in any given kind of accident, and also the changes in death tolls in a given accident. There are trade offs. People want safety so they go big. Mass nearly always wins.
consider a society with cars that get a hundred miles to the gallon but are made so light and flimsy that you don't dare lean on them.
I don't consider carbon dioxide a pollutant. If you do, then simply stop breathing and that solves the problem. ::: giggle ::: Plants breathe in CO2.
I also don't believe in MAN MADE global warming, though it is a fun thing to explore in stories. I have seen evidence of previous global warmings and global coolings. I know of three global warmings and two global coolings in the past two thousand years. We did not have factories back then. they were not caused by mankind. There are a number of countries that are growing polluters who were not included in the Keyoto (sp) treaties.That shows that they have nothing to do with the environment.
I will say that the US government is the number one polluter in the country and would love to do something about that....
On property rights, One's labor belongs to oneself. If you are willing to die to prevent another from getting your labor, they cannot force it. From that, all property rights evolves. One exchanges your labor for something of labor of someone else.
Property rights is individual rights. The government, any government not created by conquest, is supposed to exist to solve disputes. Disputes between individuals, between governments, between nations. Anything more that it does is a problem.
The United States Constitution was worded to try to prevent Congress specifically from having the ability to "do good." When they have the power to do good, they have to power to do bad.
When the country was started, English Common law existed to deal with many of the disputes. legislation was intended only to deal with points where English Common law was lacking. A bad court decision in English common law effects only that locality and that case. Court cases involving Legislation, on the other hand, are "global" effecting the whole legal jurisdiction. English Common law is no longer a useful set of laws, having been superseded by Legislation in nearly every case. The courts run the country now, not legislators or law.
Consider where an invasion takes over a land, and the new masters demand the people do work. The people all refuse to work, instead simply curl up in a ball. The masters beat them, prevent them from having water or food in an attempt to get them to work. They are deprived of sleep. The masters are shocked that people are actually dying of their treatment. All the people had to do was to work and they would be treated nicely. What does the masters do when they realize that they could have a land empty of laborers unless they leave?
When government oversteps the limits of solving disputes, you get things like laws that punish anybody from giving the wrong group comfort or business (riding at the back of the bus, separate water fountains, not allowed to go to certain stores. Yo
when Government oversteps the limits of solving disputes, you also get where you are forbidden to refuse to do business or associate with someone you don't want to have around. If you start a business, it might not be to your advantage to refuse business from anybody as you could use their money. But also as a person, you should have a right to refuse to hire someone you are not comfortable with or serve someone you don't like. The question comes down to who's business is it? yours, or the government's?
Consider a story where you start a business. you start to hire people to do work. You pick people you can deal with, who will work, and who can do the job. Suddenly the government officials come in and say that you are exhibiting racism. They drag your workers out, they are forbidden to return.
Then the government brings in people. none of them know anything about the job you are having them do. They come in late, they don't do the work they can do, driving your good customers away, and letting customers in who are stealing you blind. Their only qualification is that the government says they fit the racial makeup of society.
The government officials then forbid you from going to parties you enjoy, functions you consider important or interesting. You are required to go to mixed functions that you have nothing in common with.
In countries where industries purchased up all the lands, One can look at the local governments and their officials for that. The offiicals made their money. It is also likely that the officials had stolen the land from the people in the first place. Stories where corporations control the country are really stories where the government allowed it to happen. Microsoft used marketing to become big.
Until the government took it to court on monopoly charges, the corporation had nearly no interest in what was happening in government. Corporations only pay attention to government only when government messes with businesses. Businesses buy protection from government officials, or they try to buy advantages when not doing so will be too good for competition.
Consider a story where a intergalactic corporation arrives, and they buy the government of a planet. They give every government official and worker a small fortune and sometimes a big one, and moves them off the planet. the corporation then goes in and strip mines the planets, ripping up entire cities to get to the minerals. The people find they cannot do anything since the government had sold the land from under them. They have to run for shelter to avoid the earth moving equipment, watching everything they need to live get eaten up and shipped off planet.
Sorry for the long note.
[This message has been edited by rstegman (edited April 09, 2008).]
We sound just like them. Not the good parts, but the fighting parts.
Also, in the Share World Grant, Patrick, Iscott, and umm...someone else (sorry for forgetting who you are!), we have been working on the politics. Every time we had a rough idea we would start asking ideas and challenging each other, because its how you get somewhere.
I really hope no one on here really thinks that you can grow in wisdom or understanding by ignoring something.
That said, the problem isn't government. It's us. Count the wrong things you do in a day, and it may shock you. I'm talking from any religious point of view, but merely a "the world should be a better place" point of view.
I'll admit it. The problem is me.
quote:
I'll admit it. The problem is me.
The solution is you, too. It's in every one of us.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited April 09, 2008).]
I like the observation that one of the "Men in Black" made, something like: as individuals the human race are quite intelligent--but when they form groups, they seem to go collectively stupid.
Some random additions to the pool of thoughts above:
I agree that some understanding of how our societies evolve is valuable in writing stories with credible backgrounds. Some rich areas are how nationalism, and inability to understand other nations and cultures, creates conflict--and how that ignorance can be exploited by ruthless greedy politicians and terrorists.
When I returned from several years in the USA to England I was profoundly disappointed to realise that the BBC has changed its mission from "Inform, educate and entertain" to "Maximise audiences by exploiting human conflict".
If it's true that a significant motivation for the American-UK-led invasion of Iraq was to liberate its people from tyranny, why do we leave Zimbabwe, Darfur and Burma to name but a few in their deathly tyrannies? This was more about oil than anything else; "liberation" was a veneer.
It's also fascinating that despite the best intentions of its writers, the American Constitution appears to have stifled debate on important issues like abortion and gun law. Since it's argued that the Constitution enshrines certain aspects of these issues, the only way abortion and gun laws can be changed is by changing the Constitution, and that's deliberately made difficult to preserve stability. So the debate has moved from Senate and Congress to the selection process for members of the Supreme Court, for by packing it with those who agree with your stance on abortion and gun law, you can keep things as they are (or, if you're on the other side, push change).
Recycling waste does not make a nation resource-efficient: not generating the waste in the first place is more efficient. So for example, it might be more efficient to put drinks in bottles (not cans that are recycled) and reuse the bottles--not recycle, reuse--as in, send them back to the factory and refill them, as the Germans do their wonderful beer bottles.
Also, that global warming happened before without human intervention does not mean that current global warming too was not aided by us individually-bright-but-collectively-dumb human beings. And anyway, how do we know that previous global warming wasn't caused by the dinosaurs, hence their demise?!
Cheers,
Pat
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited April 10, 2008).]
I really respect your point of view, I think it's facinating. I happen to disagree--almost completely, but respectfully, because I think it's merely an issue of separate perspectives. But thanks very much for elaborating on those points. I feel that this new perspective you have shared is refreshing, and it's helping me to open up my mind to alternative thinking, even if I don't agree with it, to help me design and development a better balanced cast of characters. So, thank you. And perhaps I will think of a few more questions to send your way.
Igwiz's comments on Sierra Leon were extremely fascinating, thank you. Actually I'm using wikipedia to read about it and you're right I'd never heard of the place. But it so perfectly fits one of the environments of my new WIP that I am currently developing. So thank you very much for sharing.
Talespinner and tnwilz, I found both of your comments especially helpful, the UK perspective specifically. I might have questions for you when I think of them, but I absolutely appreciate the imput, and find it very valuable. This post is giving me a lot of perspective, thanks!
Just think, all of this time we've had a community of people from all around the world, and perspectives from all around the world. And we haven't really cashed in on that, to share that variety of views as much as we could have. I've been operating under the false notion that everybody here thinks, roughly, the same way I do. That everyone notices the same details, forms the same opinions, and follows the same paths to reaching their conclusions. And guess what else! I have been criticized (my old WIP) for creating characters who think too much like I do.
It's like OSC's latest essay about Hillary Clinton, agree with it or not, he makes the case that people's mental processes are something unique, like fingerprints, which should be assessed. Encountering your various points of view is invaluable, thanks again everyone.
And to those who seem interested in getting this topic shut down, I really don't see why that would be beneficial. I don't mean to be rude or anything, but it seems that the simplest solution to me is--if you find the thread useless or irrelevant for your projects--to simply ignore it. There are a few people who are finding this useful for what they are currently working on, and I am one. It's not very enjoyable to see people trying to shut down a thread which, to you, is useful.
But since someone else has put my feelings on the matter in much better words than I could, almost poetically so, I will steal from a post above. These are our sentiments about this thread:
quote:
Also, I believe one of the keys to learning to develop quality characters and effectively utilize dialogue for those characters is to hear different, heart-felt opinions from disparate voices.While I might vociferously disagree with many of the opinions stated here, they are providing me with a certain sense... a cadence, that allows me to better see how a character of the same convictions would argue similar points.
I think it's easy to forget how diverse opinions can run on both sides of any issue, and one (specifically ME) can easily get lulled into the perspective that, "everybody thinks like I do..."
So, I think this has a lot to do with writing. It's just not the mechanics of the craft. It's the flavor, the approach, the shadings. And, in my humble opinion, those shadings are what make good writing...
I believe that post to be absolutely correct. At least, it says not just what the author feels but what I feel as well, and probably several others.
Consider that, please.
[This message has been edited by Doctor (edited April 10, 2008).]
I have the same problem with where the US gets its oil.
I hear how we buy it from the middle east then the next authority says, NO. The US buys most of its oil from Venezuela. And another says, heaven no, we buy it from Canada and Mexico. Then where does all that crude in the Alaska pipeline go? Another authority told me (part of his audience years ago) we sell that all to Japan.
It is hard to exist/live/be part of a democracy or a republic when you can't trust the information coming in to base your opinions on. And the Internet isn't a great help. You find support for almost any theory there.
In the future, with so much information both true and false and all of it probably with spin on it flooding people, how are people going to make decisions? Back to word-of-mouth and someone-I-know????
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited April 10, 2008).]
First, regardless of your stand on global warming, I think that you will find very few sources now that argue that is isn't happening. I think it's a phyrric victory at best to spend a lot of time arguing over who's fault it is. I think that there is time better spent discussing how to solve the problem. If this ins't a conflict set-up that has potential to explore in setting, characterization, and plot, I don't know what is!
As to democracy, Congress, and other aspects, I think it is extremely important for we Americans to realize that our current government structure is the second, albeit more successful child of a burgeoning family of "Democracies." You see, the Federalist Republic that we now enjoy had an an older brother. It had the same name, "The United States of America," but it died in its youth, at the young age of 6 years.
From 1777 to 1781, as the US was concluding the Revolutionary War, the founders were developing the Articles of Confederation. At that time, the States were seen as the predominant implementers, with the Federalist model and a Federal Congress only as the collector of "dues," used to regulate certain international trade activities and raise a standing, Federal Army. The first "United States" was then governed under those Articles of Confederation from 1781 to 1787. The US Constitution wasn't put into place until 1787 (and wasn't officially ratified by all the States until June of 1788).
However, the "Confederacy" didn't work (either time, actually...). Even by the early 1780s, our first Confederacy was failing, the bonds between the states were fraying, and relations were failing. This had some to do with "rich states" and "poor state" issues, escpecially since each state had it's own currency, and where the value of money varied significantly from one state to the next.
The key problem was, the Congress of the Confederacy (it's actual name) wasn't empowered to pass appropriations bills, levy equal taxes across the states to fund "national" activities like Defense, or to require consistent implementation of certain laws, treaties, and other "national" policies.
What kept us together? The willingness of the Congress of the Confederation to hold a Constitutional Convention, recognize where things weren't working, and create the US Constitution. There's a reason that the preamble of the US Constitution reads, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The recognized that they were in the process of "form[ing] a more perfect Union...," because the first attempt didn't work (was an abject failure, actually).
Now, what does this all have to do with writing (those of you ask...).
What would have happened if the US hadn't held a Constitutional Convention in 1787? Specfically, what would have happened to the United States that we know during the War of 1812, if our recognition of "our mistakes" hadn't happened?
Great premise for a novel, or even a series, of historical fiction novels. And everything that we have argued about here (States Rights vs. Federalism) are key attributes of those issues.
Further, I would posit, for those who oft point out the failures of our current Federalist Republic, lobby for supremacy in States rights, and who often turn back to the "Founders" as though they were infallable; that the real wisdom of the Founders wasn't creating a system that worked the first time (it didn't), but their willingness to realize it was broken, and to fix it, all the while leaving room for additional fixes in the future (i.e., Constitutional Amendments).
Just food for thought...
[This message has been edited by Igwiz (edited April 10, 2008).]
But...somebody mentioned spellchecking one's entries---there's a feature here that lets you do that? Or some other way? 'Cause that would delight me...except when I misspell for effect, I have a few words that I like to use, that I just draw a blank on how to spell correctly. ("Aggrivate" vs "aggravate" comes immediately to mind.)
quote:
And to those who seem interested in getting this topic shut down, I really don't see why that would be beneficial. I don't mean to be rude or anything, but it seems that the simplest solution to me is--if you find the thread useless or irrelevant for your projects--to simply ignore it. There are a few people who are finding this useful for what they are currently working on, and I am one. It's not very enjoyable to see people trying to shut down a thread which, to you, is useful.
Hey now, don't accuse me of trying to stife discussion. I'm just saying, I've seen conversations less potentially flammable than this explode into bitterness and anger. The level of mature discourse on the internet is appallingly low, and Hatrack is at times no different.
That being said, I'll take your advice and het the he-ho-ha out of here. I'm well-enough versed in history, politics, the economy, the environment, and the American sense of entitlement as is.
Jayson Merryfield
Yes, but I hear lots and lots of climatologists who say the factor is the sun. Now what do we do about the sun? Put up a big planetary umbrella? Everything humans do is a pittance in comparison.
On the other hand, I have heard some scientists in the field say that the overall temp is declining slightly the last year or so. And how in England (or was it in Europe?) that movie by what's his name, an inconvenient truth, had to be shown with a big warning that it contained numerous errors and misstatements.
Of course the news seems to pick and choose the experts to interview and not necessarily by their competance or background.
This is what I mean. For SF, how you pick the information you allow characters to have can turn stuff that is absolutely true, false, and vice versa. A good way to have irony.
The sf part of this is that it seems to me that we're now at the stage in the global warming argument, for example, where X can match Y argument for argument and expert for expert and get nowhere in figuring out that elusive matter, "Truth." Especially when there is a political component driving the argument.
Will "the media" as we have viewed through most of the last century endure when there are thousands of competing voices? If you read blogs from people on the spot at the disaster in favor of the "Official Media," how can you discern what is factual and what is spin and what is downright lying? Or does no one on the internet lie?
Imagine a world in which every piece of information has -- let's be kind and say -- spin? We might except math, but then again, statistics are famous for lying. You are inundated with facts all designed by experts to convince you of what they want you to believe. How would people react? Turn cynical? Hunker down and shut out all information? Find a few sources they trust until those prove corrupt? I imagine there would be an elite who at least think they know what's going on. But anything could be buried under that mass of information. All sorts of things evil, even good. Orwell had it right.
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited April 10, 2008).]
quote:
And how in England (or was it in Europe?) that movie by what's his name, an inconvenient truth, had to be shown with a big warning that it contained numerous errors and misstatements.
A British High Court Judge reviewed Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" because someone objected to it being shown in schools.
Quotes from Times article on the Judge's findings on the movie, having reviewed the scientific evidence upon which it was based:
"He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”."
"Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
"In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
"The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts. "
Full article at http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece
Cheers,
Pat
I think, for the record, that the trend of a warming planet has been objectively measured and isn't, truthfully, up for dispute. But the exact causes are (and probably will be for some time) the source of controversy.
OK here's a premise idea, suppose you are worldbuilding another earth, something like our but further into the future, and then this same phenomena occurs "global warming," would you set up the political atmosphere to resemble our world, with arguments on every side despite general consent among the academic community, or would you make the people more uniform in their thinking? Consider that.
quote:
would you set up the political atmosphere to resemble our world, with arguments on every side despite general consent among the academic community, or would you make the people more uniform in their thinking? Consider that.
As for the causes of global warming... yes, we can't prove that humans are responsible. We can't prove the humans _aren't_ responsible, either. To do either we'd need a whole slew of Earth-like planets to experiment on, and millennia to do it in.
But the _preponderance_ of evidence, in my opinion, is pretty damn convincing, in my opinion. Enough for me to advocate a serious analysis of our lifestyle and the niche we've carved out for ourselves.
Sure, it could be due to the sun or to natural climate change. But it's one hell of a risk to gamble on, IMO.
quote:
I'm curious how this judge is so versed in science knowledge to be the authority on the matter.
He wouldn't be; he would consult experts and would only accept facts supported by evidence. He judges a case, legally. It means nothing really.
Honestly, in a world where we can't agree on whether or not caffeine is bad for us. How can anyone say with any form of certainty that the world is going to end in 20 years and the world will burn up? Follow the money and you will see the new "carbon credit" payout goes directly into Gore's pocket...well, if you buy them from his company.
You know, I think I put more thought into my characters than most people put into what they hear on the news. If CNN says it...it must be true. "Al Gore made a movie, and everyone agrees it is true." Except the scientist that disagree, and they are all excluded from being heard and removed from their jobs because they didn't blindly follow the hype.
Wow, if it weren't for the fact that this is happening, it would make for some excellent scifi stories.
I suggest thinking, and doing some research that does not include your favorite site that always says what you wish to hear, before making decisions for me and the rest of the world. Another study has determined the heavy forestation in the far north has helped raise the temperature by causing more sunlight to be absorbed and kept on the surface than being bounced off back into the atmosphere. Another study looked at the cattle population as producing waste that is equivalent to a large number of cars...I forget the exact numbers.
No one problem is the problem, no one solution is the solution. So how does this all tie into writing? Nothing in a world is as simplistic as we usually write it. Once we rise above the very narrow view our stories tend to portray, everything is far more complex than we anticipated. Governments in large are corrupt. Anyone who is speaking loudly on behalf of someone else usually will have some motivation that will be self beneficial in some way...and usually it is monetary. Individuals are nice, while large groups are continually on the edge of exploding. As writers, we should try and make our worlds more complex, and the result will be they are more believable as well.
Do people honestly believe you can buy an all in one salad shooter/espresso machine for 19.95 plus shipping and handling? No, unless they are throwing in the free coffee grinder.
LORD DARKSTORM
Welcome back to the light lol.
Insightful comments BTW
[This message has been edited by tnwilz (edited April 10, 2008).]
So, this is where I'm jumping off the turnip truck.
[This message has been edited by annepin (edited April 10, 2008).]
Well lets go back in history a bit. Now I am going on some fading memory here but I believe that A C Clarke himself came to the US in the earlier 80's (Don't remember the date) and tried to elicit his fellow writers on denouncing the threatening escalation of the Cold War. He wanted all the Sci-Fi writers to denounce the West's "continual provication" (I am paraphrasing here) What he didn't expect was the backlash from his colleagues. I mean some of them were pissed off. What is true then is true now. Americans don't like to be viewed as 'the major problem with the world'. Be it aggression, enviromental irresponsibility's, or captilist insensibilty's. Regardless what your nationality or your political persuasion let me point out what should be important to the people on this site.
Most of the publications for what we are trying to market are in the U.S.A. You can look up all the facts you want but that doesn't change. Americans buy more books than anyone else as well. Maybe thats because Americans have more disposable income (something to be said for their standard of living). Maybe its because of the loose restrictions of what is exceptable for public consumption (something to be said for their ideas of liberty). Maybe its because of all the talented and thought out works of literature (something to be said for their educational system). What ever the reason is you can't change the fact that if you want to make it big, you'll need to do well under the Stars and Stripes.
[This message has been edited by snapper (edited April 11, 2008).]
quote:
I'm curious how this judge is so versed in science knowledge to be the authority on the matter.
It was a court case. Both sides had to present evidence. The Judge's decision was based on the evidence--not opinions, evidence--provided.
Interestingly, in his judgement he called them "errors", not errors, meaning that we would only know the truth of some of the film's claims some while in the future. But of course the newspapers and broadcast news ignored that, concentrating as usual on conflict rather than fact. I think it's a real shame our communicators can't communicate, makes it real hard for the rest of us to make up our minds on complex issues.
More behind this story at http://www.celsias.com/2007/10/24/the-dirt-behind-the-recent-uk-inconvenient-truth-ruling/
I think there certainly are stories to write with global warming as a theme.
Getting scientists to agree about anything is hard. They'll argue ad infinitum over the tiniest of detail. I like to imagine that very few agree the sky is blue, because "blue" is an imprecise description of light at wavelengths of anywhere between 450 and 490 nanometers.
So when an international panel of scientists agree there's a 90% chance the Earth is indeed warming up I think we ought to take notice.
quote:
The panel said the long-term outlook for all regions was for trouble should temperatures rise by 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, or 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, with consequences ranging from the likely extinction of perhaps a fourth of the world's species to eventual inundation of coasts and islands inhabited by hundreds of millions of people.The worst outcomes faced regions that are mainly poor and already facing dangers from existing climate and coastal hazards, let alone what might be worsened by human-caused warming, authors said.
"It's the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit," said Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the panel and an energy expert from India.
'People who are poor are least equipped to be able to adapt to the impacts of climate change and therefore in some sense this does become a global responsibility in my view."
More at http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/06/healthscience/web-0406climate.php
Suppose the scientists are wrong but we listen to them anyhow. The worst that happens is we invest in cleaning our world up and it smells nicer. It also looks bright and inviting from outer space and aliens say to themselves, "Hey look, that looks like a nice place, let's drop in for tea."
Suppose the scientists are right, and we ignore them and continue to warm our world. Worst that happens is we condemn millions of the world's poorest to floods, famine and global conflict over mass migrations. And passing aliens say, "Yech. What a mucky place. Let's move on and leave them to rot in their own filth."
I agree with Anne, it's not worth the risk. Now if only I could capture all that in a story that wasn't dystopianly depressing, or naively optimistic ...
Cheers,
Pat
From http://books.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,2266521,00.html
quote:
He was bitterly critical of the 1980s concept of Star Wars and, well before this emerged as US policy, sent a personal message of appeal from his Physics and Space Institute in Sri Lanka to the US Congress. His video statement A Martian Odyssey, which was read into the congressional record, argued that money being spent on intercontinental ballistic missiles could, to everyone's benefit, be imaginatively channelled into an international space voyage to Mars to mark the 500th anniversary of the voyage of Columbus in search of the Americas in 1492. He did not predict an end to the cold war, but he always sought and fought for new bridges between cultures.
And from http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/04/arthur-c-clarke-on-s.html
quote:
I have only recently learned, from his long-time secretary Carol Rosin, that Wernher von Braun used my 1952 book, The Exploration of Space, to convince President Kennedy that it was possible to go to the Moon.
Cheers,
Pat
quote:
Regardless what your nationality or your political persuasion let me point out what should be important to the people on this site.
Most of the publications for what we are trying to market are in the U.S.A.
Which means what, precisely? That those of us who do not wish to focus their writing on American markets aren't welcome?
Shakespeare made it big in the USA I believe, yet I doubt he wrote with the American market in mind. Harry Potter is popular in the USA in part because of its Englishness--as are Monty Python and James Bond. I'm sure that, like most nationalities, Americans like "foreign" as well as native writing.
And this is the internet age, with print-on-demand just around the corner. Book markets will become global. The biggest growing market for luxury goods is China--where there are enough Chinese who read English to become a substantial market (provided their government opens up at some point to free speech)--what price Fahrenheit 451 in China?!
I think markets are distinguished more by their taste than their nationality--Asimov's, Analog and Interzone are more different for the kind of story they buy than their nationalities. (There are national differences--Harry Potter's "wooly" had to become a "sweater" in America for example, but they're comparatively small.)
I'd like to write for an international audience, neither an American nor a British one--and I hope Hatrackers are okay with that.
Cheers,
Pat
Which means what, precisely? That those of us who do not wish to focus their writing on American markets aren't welcome? /quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That simply means that when usually one aim for the markets with most money, the United States markets TENDS to be the where the money is. It is a 300,000 person reasonably educated market with money, leasure time and seriously enforced copyright laws. all those points makes for a prime market. China, for example has more people and is growing in money, and a lot of them know English, but they have sensorship and almost no copyright law enforcement. One will be lucky to get a good amount of money from such a market since books are quickly bootlegged.
There is acutally very little sensorship in American publications which is why it is such a big market. Book burnings one has heard about, are usually only a local community. They also tend to actually expand the reach of the banned book as everyone wants to see what the big deal is all about. There are some of us who think that Those who publically protests against something is really an attempt to make the work seen by an audience that would not normally see it.
I've followed science through publications since the early 80s. What I have found is that there is more politics involved in science than in politics. Once the "community" decides a line of study is taboo. carreers are ruined if one ventures into that line of study. Very non-scientific words are sometimes used about such people.
If one wishes to advance science in the taboo realms, one has to deal at the very edges of that realm and slowly prove one's way very carefully. Jumping into the middle can be fatal.
Examples of this was Global Catastrophes was highly taboo back in the 50s was finally accepted in the 90s. Cold fusion is a taboo subject right now.
The environmentallists are working to make Global warming denying as a taboo subject.
On the global warming, one must also ask, IF EVERYTHING IS DONE, INCLUDING GIVING UP ALL THOSE RIGHTS AND AND FREEDOMS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE LEARN THAT IT IS UNQUESTIONABLY NATURAL? What do you do then? HOw are you going to get your rights and freedoms back?
You cannot.
That is why it is critical to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that giving up a right or freedom will actually accomplish anything. We are giving placing our hands in people who have not shown they even know what they are talking about, JUST IN CASE.
There is ENOUGH evidence against MAN MADE global warming to put into question into the motives of the advocates. Notice that their solutions only effect nations without a strong government. To find out if they really are serious, see if they would still be interested in their changes if they are forbidden to be in power. I doubt it very much.
Also note that it was GLOBAL COOLING in the 1870s, Then it became GLOBAL WARMING, and now it is GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. Commentors I have heard said that these global climate people act as if the climate this moment is optimal, and has always been like this since the begining of time. They are dependant on people not looking into historical records and not having a memory.
As a story, one could have it where officials tell about a serious disaster coming. Everybody has to give up everything and live and work in cubbyholes. The people are convinced and do what is needed. Decades later, the disaster comes. The people demand to know hwere the disaster was. The officials admit that there never was one. The officials simply wanted to replace the city with a park. The people had forgotten how to make weapons so they are stuck with their situation.
I wrote a story idea early last year that pointed to global warming is actually caused by modern mankind. To shorten the idea, our electronics effect earth's magnetisim. Earth magnetism then intereacts with the sun's magnetism differenly than normal. These changes are causing the sun to heat up. Therefore, if we elmininate all our electronics, global warming would end....
You got a better solution???
In a Dilbert Cartoon, Dogbert's power company makes power with the help of Environmentallists.
The scene then shows two men carrying an environmentallist wrapped up in a blanket and they are standing in front of the door of a incinerator One of them says "We are running low on these."
My thought is that we try that with global warming enthusiasts. We keep using the alternative "fuel" until the global warnings end, then we will know we solved the problem.... ::: giggle :::
Back to the original subject of this string.
There are several reasons that Americans feel entitled.
One is that our Elected officials has worked hard to create that belief in the poor, but voting public as a way to stay elected.
Second, We were once able to do just about anything we put our mind to and still assume we are at that level.
And three, because of our education system and our public news gathering organizations, we have no concept that things are not as we think they are. It is typical with any group. We were the best once, we still must be the best, arn't we?
A thought for the day:
Government solves problems with laws, regulations and taxes, that were created in the first place by their previous laws, regulations and taxes.
quote:
I'd like to write for an international audience, neither an American nor a British one--and I hope Hatrackers are okay with that.
Eh? I thought that this was the goal for all of us. Some American authors make more money in foreign markets than domestically. Likewise, I'm sure, some foreign authors do better in American markets.
Personally, if I made two million from German markets and 150,000 domestically, I wouldn't change to focus on what I think the German reader likes. If they're buying my work, I'm already doing that.
I don't think of Hatrack as a political entity. I'm not. Granted, I have my opinions, but I wouldn't avoid reading Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov because he wasn't aiming for an American market. In fact (to aim this thread back toward the direction I believe it started in), I would read them because they don't focus on what's familiar--and I take away a richness of culture in the process.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited April 11, 2008).]
quote:
Oh, hey Doc... I wanted to tell you good luck on your WIP, and tell you that if you have any more questions regarding Sierra Leone, please don't hesitate to semd me an e-mail (address on my profile).
Hey thanks! At the moment it's a little premature but as things get going I'd probably like a pretty avid description that goes beyond the average climate and weather. For instance the small, sensory details, the temperature over a single day, the wetness, the smells, the color, etc.
I'll let you know. And thanks!
There's an implication in previous posts that we should write for the most profitable markets. If we want profit, F&SF is not the place to find it!
I want to get published, but writing stuff I enjoy writing. That does not mean focusing on where the most money is, nor does it mean necessarily focusing on America. It means writing what I want to write, and then locating the best market for it, regardless of where it is in the world.
Indeed, I have one or two stories which I think are very unlikely to sell in America (because they attack USA gun laws). I'll most likely try to sell them in England--not for the money, just to get them published. Had I focused on the American market, they would never have been written.
Cheers,
Pat
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited April 11, 2008).]
quote:
I try not to center any story around a political issue. If there's a point to be argued, both sides will usually have a good one.
That's true. My first story taught me that preaching doesn't make a good story, so with the next couple I tried to present both sides of the argument through the characters. It's tough to write arguments you strongly disagree with--yet instructive, I found, because I began to see the other point of view. The stories I have in mind will be ambiguous in their attitudes towards guns ... so despite being born of my own views, maybe they'll have a chance in America after all!
Cheers,
Pat
Since we have devolved into a polarized discussion of opinion. In some ways, it seems as though we are caught in the middle of a story. There seems to be three perspectives/characters. 1) The "American" perspective, 2) the "not American" perspective, and 3) the "expatriated American/Americanized expatriate" perspective.
It seems to me that all are coming from valid perspectives. As one who falls into category 3, I am likely similar to a non-smoker in a smoke-filled bar; lots of self-righteous indignation...
Tracy, I would recommend that you look at two sources that I have found quite... illuminating regarding the American culture and it's view of the world.
First, Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life." First published in 1963, I find it a bit stuffy, but extremely enlightening regarding the changes in American culture since the turn of the 20th century.
The second is much more recent, titled, "The Fourth Great Awakening & the Future of Egalitarianism," by Robert Fogel. This is a fascinating book by an economic historian, who traces some of the socio-economic trends, peaks and valleys, and how they have shaped the American psyche.
I think these are excellent places to look to get an idea of where that sense of "entitlement" came from, and how it has shaped our culture.
Here are some well known SF titles which I think rely critically on the author's understanding of how politics, power and politicians work. They all feature a fight against repression of one kind or another:
Fahrenheit 451 - Bradbury
1984 - Orwell
Foundation Series - Asimov
The Space Merchants - Pohl
Dune - Herbert
The Lensman Series - Smith
Perdido Street Station - Mieville
I'd suggest that, while it's not relevant to writing to have political discussions where one tries to persuade another of the merits of one political view over another, I think it is legitimate for writers to try to understand how politics works--for example, how nations develop--in order to bring authenticity to stories of conflict whether national, planetary or interstellar.
I think this thread has been mostly civilised because different points of view have been largely accepted and discussed in order to understand them, not to change them.
Cheers,
Pat
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited April 12, 2008).]
quote:
rstegman,
You are wrong, try to think beyond the agit-prop.
quote:
Sara, I appreciate your oppinion, but you did not need to resort to flaming:
quote:
One last point. I'm guessing you're American and that you were educated in the US. Go back to your post, check your spelling and grammar. If you can't even get your own language right, I doubt you have the moral authority to pan the rest of the World.
quote:
And, Sara, there is a reason why English is the international trade language. Americans and Englishmen have very good reason[s to be proud of their countries. I am proud of mine everyday.
Yep, no acrimony here, just discussion of political theory. And no doubt the rule against political discussion doesn't count.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited April 12, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited April 12, 2008).]
Can a study of biased iformation from a variety of sources (CNN, BBC, Fox, etc.) yield the truth, or will it only yield the truth about human bias? Along the same lines, I wonder whether there are any cultures that see themselves with complete objectivity, and if there are, whether those cultures would have any survival power in the long run. I've been told that cultures in power are the only ones with the luxury of self-deception, but I've seen just as much self-deception, albeit of a different sort, in cultures struggling for survival. It almost makes me think that hope is incompatible with a realistic outlook.
Could human nature support a society in which every other group on Earth was considered equal and therefore had a voice in the first group's actions? Would that voice ever be used fairly, or are people incapable of truly giving equal weight to the needs of an outsider?
What happens if the will to power is encoded so deeply in us that we lose interest in life once there are no power struggles to engage in? If we strip away the human drive to acquire, whether it be goods, status, or power, will other motivators be enough to keep us going?
I had just posted a serious contribution to this thread. Amongst other things it suggests why a blanket ban on politics would be bad for hatrack.
Please don't provoke a flame war by dragging up stuff that's long forgotten.
Find a nice cup of Assam, dear, or maybe a Macallans.
Cheers,
Pat
quote:
I wonder whether there are any cultures that see themselves with complete objectivity
I don't believe so. I once thought the BBC was a bastion of objective reporting, but over the years have realised that it has a liberal bias. Indeed, some kind of liberalism is essential in honest journalism, the kind that doesn't judge which facts should be published and which not, but publishes anyhow so that we can make up our own minds. But still, the views of the reporter and newspaper editor must surely taint the reporting. You'd only report fraud, for example, if you thought it was wrong.
I'm beginning to think (as a result of this thread so please nobody close it yet) that it's not possible to keep politics entirely out of SF either.
Here's an interesting piece on the topic by someone who calls himself simply ESR:
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/sf-history.html
He says,
quote:
There was also a political aura that went with the hard-SF style, one exemplified by Campbell and right-hand man Robert Heinlein. That tradition was of ornery and insistant individualism, veneration of the competent man, an instinctive distrust of coercive social engineering and a rock-ribbed objectivism that that valued knowing how things work and treated all political ideologizing with suspicion.
Much as I loved Heinlein's work I was always uneasy with some of its political aspects which struck me as rather right wing.
What would complete objectivity mean? It would mean we'd all have to know everything, and trust our sources of information, else if we took a vote on something, some of us would be better informed than others. (That's why they built the Library of Congress, right?--To enable politicians to make democratic decisions based on fact.)
It would also mean we'd all value things and assess risks the same way. For example, some people think we shouldn't catch and kill whales, others think it's okay--there's hardly any way to be objective about that: it depends on your views about cruelty to animals and whether you believe they'll die out or not. Same with climate change; some people believe the scientists that predict it, others don't, and the scientists think they're being objective.
Where's Mister Spock when we need him?!
Pat
Haiti is having a famine right now. If you look through history, there has NEVER been a famine in a nation where property rights are enforced (note, I did not say democracy though democracy and property rights tend to go hand in hand). When food gets expensive enough, someone will find it worth going through the extra effort to find food from other sources, usually other peoples or nations.
If you look at nations where they have had a food supply problem, they are nations where the government does not hold property rights as a right. They also tend to be places with strong governments that do not hold people as free.
Consider a story where a crops fail and people are starting to suffer. Your character sees that the prices are now at a point that would cover the costs of shipping from other lands.
the character takes what money is available and goes to another country. There food is purchased and then brought back home. The food is sold as the going price. Several trips like this dampens the famine and the people are able to recover.
When it is all over, the character has made cost plus enough to replace the transportation (ship as a good possibility) used.
The government then comes to the character. Charging above the official price is illegal and therefor every bit of money charged over that price is to be returned to the government.
The character ends up paying for the opportunity to save the people.
The next year, there is another famine. The people are begging the character to get food, whatever the price. Even the government is begging for help. The character mentions about last year's rescue and the penalty paid. The government says the rules are the rules. The character shrugs, The government takes existing ship and then finds no one is available to get the food anyway. People starve.
Conservative and liberal has changed in definition over time. A lot of times, our understanding of what each is is behind the time of modern usage.
In the 1950s America, Conservative and Liberals were strictly fiscally oriented. The conservatives believed that money belonged to the person who earned it and that if they wanted good to be done, they could gather others of a like mind and accomplish the good they wanted done. Government's core job was to settle disputes as described in the letter of the United States Constitution.
Liberals of the time believed that Government should be allowed to do some good, to allow government to take a little more taxes than needed to help the poor and disadvantage. They essentially Liberally Interpreted the United States Constitution as to what was allowed by the Congress and the Federal Government.
Both groups had the same moral stances.
After the 60s and 70s, the hippy generation joined the Liberals as they wanted to help the poor and disadvantaged, and with that, their desire to be free from moral scrutiny came with them. The Conservatives retained their moral stances.
Very quickly, the moral stance became known as the Liberal and Conservative. there are Fiscal Conservatives who don't give a whit about the Moral Question and Moral conservatives who think that Government should enforce morals. There are Liberals who want to help others through the government but are angry that the morals are going to pot, while there are Liberals who just want anything the Moral Conservatives are against, to be legalized. Well, maybe not that far, but it is the direction they happen to be aiming.
One could have characters in an argument, one is thinking of the way things used to be, like fiscal conservative as opposed to Moral conservative, while the other is talking the way things are now, Moral Liberal as opposed to Fiscal Liberal.
The thing is, is that the argument would get nowhere as they are talking about different things.
The parties are made up of coalitions of groups and their strengths are in how well they control their groups. The Democratic party is made up of thousands of different groups. They are combined as the solution to all their problems is in having government help them solve it.
The Republicans are made up of five groups. Two groups are the fiscal conservatives who are interested in smaller government or lower taxes. Two groups called the Moral Conservatives are involved in using government to protect morals (exact opposite of the first two). Then there is one group, which is referred to as Blue Blood Country Club Republicans, think that the size and scope of government is perfect.
The Libertarian party is made up of people who want to return to the bounds of the original constitution both fiscally and Morally where at least the Federal Government has no say on morals and only does the work as limited by the Constitution.
Other third parties are generally exactly what they say they are. third parties are a great outlet for people dissatisfied with the status quo.
The parliamentary system has the advantage of things being proportional and that small parties can leverage their power by joining with major groups to give them the numerical advantage to be in control, in exchange for either positions or to have laws presented to the whole group. In America, it is winner takes all, which means that the it is difficult for small groups to influence their government.
How the representatives are selected make a big difference in the way the governments will work and not work. It also effects how those not represented will react to the government. In a winner take all, it is very frustrating to not ever be able to influence things. In proportional representation, they might be frustrated because each group is preventing important things being done (however important is defined.).
It always bothers me where you have a chief who exercises absolute power and no one else has any say over it. A chief always has backers, whether they are the wisemen or soldiers, the chief always has others supporting him.
Leaders selected by their people is the way leaders are originally selected. Any leaders after that are selected by force, groups moving in to conquer another people. Many start out as gangs and simply extend their range with their gang members. Later, they develop armies and are lords, kings, emperors. they defeat the leaders of the area and are in control. All original kings are war leaders.
Basically, if their leaders were not selected by the people, they were conquered. This is how an army beating another small force takes over a wide area. The leading family is beaten, The population is not going to be a problem.
Of course, if the leadership is selected by the population, such as with democracies in general, the people are more likely to be involved in the defense of the land. If the population is allowed to be armed, they might gather together for the common defense. One country, Sweden or Switzerland, I forgot which, armed their population with military weaponry. Hitler looked at all those rifles and decided it was not worth his losses to try to take the nation. He left them alone. everybody in the population was involved in the common defense of the nation.
In general, Leaders who serve at the permission of the followers will be happy to have armed citizenry being armed, while leaders who hold the citizenry by force will do anything within their power to keep them helpless so they can be controlled.
In early America, everybody was armed and that in, and of itself, made it tough on the British. There were several examples where the population was called to arms and they showed up in force of a size that made up for their lack of training and experience. Even lucky shots will drop a soldier and most of the people were experienced in hunting which showed them how to at least hit a target.
In a story, one could use the history of the land to show how the government was formed and the leadership became leadership. One can also show by the government as to whether the population is feared by the government or the government is feared by the population. The type of leadership can make a difference in the way society works.
The leader might travel with nearly a whole army of guards just to keep from getting killed, or the leader might walk the streets at night alone and not worry.
People might complain about what the government is doing that it should not be, or they might complain that the government is not doing what it is supposed to be doing. Another option is that someone might ask if the government would do something, and the other person suggests that they do it since it is important, and get others to help.
Entire stories could be written about the interaction of the government, whichever type it is. It is a great way to set the background of the civilization.
quote:
There has NEVER been a famine in a nation where property rights are enforced
I think Zimbabwe is the exception that proves the rule. There, the so-called government enforces the handover of property from (white) farmers to local thugs, who are neither interested in nor able to farm it, so the country starves.
Also, didn't the Native American Indians lose out and almost starve because property rights were invented and enforced by their European (later to become American) invaders?
Further, I believe there are remote tribes in South American jungles who hunt in the jungle for food and are losing out because loggers are taking ownership of forests which previously weren't owned by anyone.
"Ownership" of land isn't a universal concept. IIRC the Native American Indians, for example, believed that they were custodians of the land, not owners of it.
quote:
The Republicans are made up of five groups. Two groups are the fiscal conservatives who are interested in smaller government or lower taxes. Two groups called the Moral Conservatives are involved in using government to protect morals (exact opposite of the first two).
Honour amongst thieves?
quote:
One country, Sweden or Switzerland, I forgot which, armed their population with military weaponry. Hitler looked at all those rifles and decided it was not worth his losses to try to take the nation. He left them alone. everybody in the population was involved in the common defense of the nation.
It's Switzerland, where--still--every able-bodied male aged between 19 and 31 is a member of the Army. They also have a small air force, but not a navy of course--although they do have some military patrol boats that patrol their lakes. They believe this helps them maintain their neutrality.
Hitler avoided them not just because of the fact that they were all armed. The terrain is mountainous and they have supplies hidden in caves all over the place. Very difficult terrain to govern unless you know it intimately, which of course the locals do. Also, I believe he and his Generals felt they needed a safe place to store their ill-gotten riches until after the war was over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
In all of these different belief systems there are stories, methinks.
Cheers,
Pat
quote:
Fahrenheit 451 - Bradbury
1984 - Orwell
Foundation Series - Asimov
The Space Merchants - Pohl
Dune - Herbert
The Lensman Series - Smith
Perdido Street Station - Mieville
These books might be "about" politics...but they're most definitely about the characters contained within them. Take "Foundation" et. al....it's about the fall of the Galactic Empire, but it's about Hari Seldon and company and what they plan and try to do to stop it.
It isn't the American sense of entitlement. Its the sense of entitlement of the entire industrialized world.
And in some ways, of the entire human race...because there are certain things every human being *is* entitled too. But some times it gets distorted.
Either way, its certainly interesting, if oft-used story material. Its certainly true that many people in industrialized nations feel themselves badly off without things that arent crucial for life or anything, while some in the world don't even have food. However, there are two things I would mention in regards to that.
1) Many people in countries like the US do have many "luxuries" etc, but live on a knife-edge. I myself am an example...I have Internet and Cable TV yea...but, if my hours get cut back at work or something, I can quickly end up in danger of being able to pay the rent or buy food, cable or no cable. Largely due to the fact that in America especially, you have to own and maintain a car to live, and other such things...some things that arent really vital, have become so in our society.
2) I personally feel that enviromental stuff and all aside, both the biggest cost, and, in a cyclical way the cause, of a lot of it is the spiritual, emotional and pyschological bereftment and/or damage that results from the current nature of our society.
Gee I really hope that made sense..
With the population burgeoning, there will come a time when this question becomes paramount. And it is chilling to think of.
If you rely on people to govern themselves on this, then there is a part of the population which will limit their childbearing. They then will decrease in numbers while the other part that can't or won't limit their offspring will increase in numbers. Sort of the "marching morons" scenario though I'm not saying in this case that intelligence is the overriding factor in the decision of limiting offspring.
If the decision is left to the government you have big problems. This is a tremendous power to "adjust" the population to some plan. Say that it is by hair color. Most of the world has black hair. In order to save red and blond and brown, people with those colors of hair are permitted to have three children while people with black hair are only allowed one child. The population will change. However, at what point will the enforcement end? When half the population has black hair? A third? A tenth?
Whether it is hair color, skin color, religion, intelligence, other abilities, wealth -- limiting this particular entitlement is going to be one hairy, violent mess.
Ya'll should read the book Generation Me. I don't remember the author's name, but I heard her speak in a psychology convention I attended last week. It covers a lot of this kind of thing...some of the statistics and findings are very shocking.
~Chris
On the other hand, when societies improve in their health care, develop the ability to own and hold property, especially land, the number of children reduce drastically.
Consider the difference dividing a section of land betweeen eighteen children and one child when one dies. Just a couple generations, there would only be a patch of land if land is divided by dozens of children every generation. Instead, as childhood survival increases, one has less children to keep hard earned property more contiguous. Wealth remains somewhat more intact.
One of the big problem with industrial countries is that they are not having enough children to replace themselves. Many would be suffering population deplosions if it were not for the influx of forigners.
When "environmentallists" talk about overpopulation, they point to nations and regions where childhood illnesses descimate the population and where property ownership is not something divided among the children (could be becuase ownership is non existance or their society operates based on other rules). The families have big families and then are unable to support all the hungry mouths when the crops do not do too well, one gets all sorts of news about starving children and overpopulation.
As a side note, I remember a 1980s famine that was caused by the government. The lands had to be left fallow for seven years to give it time to recover. The government declared that any land left fallow for longer than five years would belong to the government. When what would have been a minor drought hit, the already stressed lands caused the crops to fail. They had a famine that filled the news.
As to the entitlement, when one raised in comfortable comparitiviely luxurious conditions, one expects it to continue. One comes to believe that one is entitled to that life style.
In the political mind I work from, there is no such thing as an overpopulation problem. There is more work, more things to make, more services to do, than there are people in the world. The problem is that the various governments apply brakes, making it difficult to start a business, expensive to run them, easier to be knocked out of business and difficult to reach more than local markets. Those areas could provide labor, servicies or products that the rest of the world would love to have.
I think it might have been Chilli or Argentina (memories of the 80s are weak), where the dictator hunted down and eliminated the socialists from the society. He then convinced the national council to not increase taxes. after that, the living standards of the people increased dramatically as they were able to make and keep most of any wealth they gained. They worked harder as they could gain from their efforts. they started more businesses and unimployment plummetted. They also immeately started saving vast percentages of their money for retirement. In a program, I saw a before and after of a home some people lived in. They still lived in the same place, but now the place was referbished, and no longer looked like a hovel.
oops out of time
quote:
Yep, no acrimony here, just discussion of political theory. And no doubt the rule against political discussion doesn't count.
JeanneT, with respect, I am a little confused by your keen interest in locking a topic many of us have found useful. And one that has not erupted in a flame war on any scale.
Also I am cheerfully entertained by your very biased selection of quotes meant to demonstrate this topic has exploded into one of bad feelings and disrespect. I can play the same game, enjoy.
quote:
Hey Twilz. Good eye
quote:
Sara, I appreciate your oppinion
quote:
I don't think either Tracy's or Sara's intent was to "bad mouth" the USA
quote:
I find it funny, in a polite way, that you shifted the topic
quote:
That said, I'm curious what others think about my points above, all of them. Maybe my own viewpoint is warped by the window of my existence.
quote:
While I might vociferously disagree with many of the opinions stated here, they are providing me with a certain sense... a cadence, that allows me to better see how a character of the same convictions would argue similar points.
quote:
I will say that many of the criticisms of my note was valid.
quote:
I'll admit it. The problem is me.
quote:
The solution is you, too. It's in every one of us.
quote:
I really respect your point of view, I think it's facinating. I happen to disagree--almost completely, but respectfully, because I think it's merely an issue of separate perspectives.
quote:
Igwiz's comments on Sierra Leon were extremely fascinating, thank you
quote:
Talespinner and tnwilz, I found both of your comments especially helpful
quote:
Encountering your various points of view is invaluable, thanks again everyone
quote:
Some VERY interesting points of view out there. I think that these could be explored in various ways in stories, or even a novel
Cheers.
I’m not sure I buy that argument any more.
If you try and reduce the population, you wind up with fewer people. Then more flood in. The “reason” is that you need them to keep things working, but then why was the country or area feeling overpopulation pressure in the first place? I think cheap labor may be the greater factor. Now suddenly you have jobs people don’t want to work and it’s easy to import hungry labor from across the border rather than raise the value of lower jobs causing the existing population to reduce their standard of living to pay now for trash collection and strawberry picking and so forth the sort of wages that would go to say, an auto mechanic or receptionist?
Whatever is the root cause, the population IS increasing. Both here in the States and worldwide, the numbers rise relentlessly. What is it? Year by year, 1/10 of the people born in Mexico come to reside in the States legally or otherwise?
Yes, more people are born on average in the poorer countries because of poverty and needing somebody in the family to survive into the next generation.
Yes, with property rights and all in the richer countries people need and therefore bear fewer children.
This creates the vacuum I just outlined and keeps the overpopulation building.
Is the true root of the problem our universal desire to pay the lowest price for goods and services-- the eternal quest for the discount sale rather than holding to the idea of an honest day’s wages for an honest day’s work?
For the honest day’s work to be considered I think you need trust. Trust, that it IS value for the money, which trust is harder in our increasingly anonymous society. If you don't know your garbage man and how hard he works (or doesn’t), not paying him a wage not only sufficient for survival but to live as comfortably as yourself is much easier than if he’s some faceless immigrant who lives in squalor (for sake of this argument) and sends money home across the sea or border .
And his family has more children and the cycle keeps going.
Hmmm..why don't the places producing the large populations change? It is to somebody's benefit short term to keep this going????
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited April 15, 2008).]
So the long term solution is obvious. We must go to the stars!
(Or at least make spacefarers of our convicts and religious misfits ;-)
Pat
I like going upward and outward, myself, but there seems to be a lack of American will toward that since the early 70s. Makes you wonder, why?
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited April 15, 2008).]
quote:
I like going upward and outward, myself, but there seems to be a lack of American will toward that since the early 70s. Makes you wonder, why?
No oil.
And--no competition: the Russians don't want to go either. We'll have to wait until the Chinese or the Japanese get serious about going into space ...
(Mind, at leaast you guys tried. It annoys me that we Brits found ways to justify not going. Whatever happened to Woomera?)
Wistfully,
Pat
Cheers,
Pat
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited April 15, 2008).]
Since when is the "no politics" rule by popular vote? It's an interesting concept.
This thread has absolutely nothing to do with writing--nothing whether you are enjoying it or not. And that has always been the dividing line on this forum.
I have about the same interest in it that a couple of people had in stopping a discussion between Robert and me on formatting which at LEAST related to writing. I find it inappropriate (or I will make the polite assumption that was the interest as opposed to that they just didn't want us to enjoy a friendly debate).
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited April 16, 2008).]
I do try to keep it pointed to writing, showing how examples of what I write fits to writing.
We all deal in governments in our stories, especially when dealing with science fiction. An understanding of what they are, how they work, or why they don't. is key.
On going to the planets or stars, the problem is that Government is involved. This goes for every single government project.
Governemnt seed money is fantastic. One can create outstanding advances when you have a great influx of money. Government is great for throwing money at a problem.
Once a program starts to show progress, then the bad part of the government comes into play.
Government cannot trust. Some things are hard to varify. If it is a scientific endevor, they might not even uderstand the science involved. The only way the government can have any chance of making sure the recipients are using the funding properly is to have the program provide a series of forms to show that they are complying with the rules and expectations. That creates a problem for those doing the work.
Government is quite imaginative on the types and number of forms to be filled out. papers to be written. The people actually doing the work of the program, simply do not have time for filling out forms and writing papers. They have to hire people who are qualified to handle the papers and forms. You immediately get an expansion of the working budget. Then the government requires those actually doing work to personally report to officials. This takes their time away from their work.
People have to be in charge of the people doing paperwork, and people are brought in to coordinate the different departments. Every one of them need a staff to help them with their work. A beauracracy develops, more budget is needed. Now making sure the paperwork is more important than the work being done.
NASA started out as a group of scientists and engineers working on a common goal. That was when we were solving problems, inventing, "pushing the envelope".
Nasa is not that any more.
Have a story where one goes to a high tech government project. you are there to see the actual science that is going on. You search the main site and you cannot even find a lab. It is strictly offices with people filling out forms. You check a dozen other sites involved in the project and there are no labs there either.
One finally goes to the records and trace the history of the project. reading every paper and every report to glean informaiton.
Other than a few early scienctific findings, there has been no science done there. It strictly existed to do paperwork.
We knew back in the late 70s early 80s that reaching for the stars were not going to happen. As mentioned in one of my earlier notes, Government can only apply brakes. For the space program, they were doing a good job of that. Congress had passed laws that forbade any non-government sponsored entity from buiding space ships. NASA had by law, no competition. You could not go out and build and launch your own space ships.
In business, competition is fantastic FOR THE CUSTOMER. Each competing business tries to find a way to satisfy what the customer wants better than your competitor.
In discussions about competition with businesses, one cannot look at the owner of the business (the industry), or to the employees of the business(labor), One must look at the customer. It is the one actually purchasing the product that counts. A business does not exist without the customer.
When a customer has a choice in where to spend their money, each choice ends up improving their satisfaction to the customer or they go out of business.
Satisfaction to the customer could be price, quality of the product, how the personel treat the customer, choices of products, just to name a few. With competition, the business will improve one or more of these to keep the customer happy. Prices go down, people become nicer, quality improves for all who are involved.
Government has a strong dislike with anything competing with them. Since government have the power of the police, legal system, and military, they have the power to forbid any competition. Without any competition, the government has to guess as to what to charge. Since any project the government does involves large beauracracies, they are never efficiant or cheep. Since everybody is in their job to satisfy the beaurocrat above them, they don't have to be nice to the customer.
For example, here in America, it is illegal to send a first class envelope by any means other than the government run post office. Of course the price keeps going since there is no way for the government to know what it really costs to do so.
In the space program, there were several ways to deliver a ship into space. The government made a decision on the method and all other methods were shelved. The way the government chose to deliver payloads into space may well have been the wrong way to do it, but since other methods could not be tested by beauracratic decree, we will never fully know. If there was free competition to go into space by anybody who could create the technology, we likely would be going to the stars now. As it is, it is only because other nations developed lauch programs and were willing to sell payload space that we even have a space station.
From the wizard of Id,
"Why can't we launch the rocket?
"The primary thrust mechinsm failed tragically."
"What does that mean?"
"the rubberband broke."
A whole story could be written around where that is the method the government decided to try to send things into space. the paper pushers cannot get their mind around the fact that there is not enough thrust in the rubber band and they won't approve the real science needed to get something into orbit.
Out of time.
quote:
I have about the same interest in it that a couple of people had in stopping a discussion between Robert and me on formatting which at LEAST related to writing. I find it inappropriate (or I will make the polite assumption that was the interest as opposed to that they just didn't want us to enjoy a friendly debate).
Now, I have a tendency to misread things. But, unless I'm mistaken, you're telling me that you're bent on getting this thread shutdown because someone else rained on your parade. Misery loves company after all.
Politics is more than just stepping on toes and fighting, it's, essentially, a relationship between people and their government. What could be more appropriate for fiction writers to bounce ideas off of each about?
I don't consider this topic to be a discussion of politics in that sense. And, please, don't argue with me about this definition of politics, okay?
Second, when I see people who appear to me to be attacking each other, especially when they are doing it in more than one topic, regardless of whether or not they consider their "discussion" to be friendly or not, I will ask them to ignore each other. Further discussion is also not appreciated.
I try not to be arbitrary around here, but when I see things happening that do not look "friendly" any more to me, I will do what I can to stop them.
Maybe it's a "sense of humor" problem. I realize that what one person may think is "joking" will not be perceived that way by someone else. There isn't much anyone can do about that, especially in an online context when tone of voice and facial expressions are not available. We just have to go with what the words say.
Please, in this topic, discuss the ideas, not the people who have expressed them.
Thank you.
quote:
On going to the planets or stars, the problem is that Government is involved.
Has been until now. Virgin are trying a commercial venture.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/
How long before a religious group with access to pots of money decides there's salvation on Mars?
Cheers,
Pat
I'm already on that one. It keeps cropping up in my space stories as part of the background.