Thread: Space Colony organization?

Lets say you arrive on a Mars colony. Something happens on earth and the colony is left on its own, and the leader dies. The various colonists want to try a new way to organize the colony and its activities.Can you imagine a method of organizing/cooperating that doesnt involve money?If theres a air leak, should the tech that knows best how to repair this leak make shia pets or jump on the task of saving the collony? Should this information air leak repair be available for free? Should individuals know if anyone else knows how to repair a leak, so that if there isnt many it can be prioritized?How do you imagine it could be organized?

There's always going to be something that serves the purpose. If it's back rubs, then people will work for back rubs. You tell the guy who knows how to repair the leak best that he'll get 50 back rubs if fixes it.

We could take this down another road and make it another kind of service, like tricks with the colony's best harlot. There's always going to be something scarce that everyone wants and which there isn't enough of to go around.

If you want to get a young Muslim male to blow himself up, promise him 70 houris. Just make it payable after he does it.

I'd default to proven survival leadership techniques. People are nominated, one is put in charge. If time isn't urgent, everyone gets a say, but the decision rest with that leader (consensus options are almost always better than individual options). If there is no time--it's all on the leader (that's why they got chosen). Leader decisions stick. When there is time the leader may be replaced. Everyone does his part according their capabilities to orders from the leadership or gets escorted to an airlock (community pressure should be high to avoid this in most cases). Once things are stable, we move to more egalitarian systems with more freedoms with the option to return to martial law if another crisis appears.

We wouldn't want to adopt a system where the person who knows how can be compelled against their will to fix the leak. Why? Because if knowing how to do stuff means you're going to be beaten or tortured the first time you choose not to (or fail.... because how can anyone not skilled in your art know the difference between voluntary and involuntary modes of failure on your part?)

Under those circumstances no rational person would ever choose to learn those skills.

On the other hand, if knowing how and applying a skill always results in a reward, then people will be lining up to learn it.

We wouldn't want to adopt a system where the person who knows how can be compelled against their will to fix the leak. Why

In survival situations you really have no choice--because either the leak gets fixed by someone who knows how or everyone dies. Obviously it's preferred to apply other leadership methods, but ultimately the person MUST do what he's told or needs to be forced.

Once things get safer was can apply more choice methods.

That's called "shortsightedness". From a political standpoint, the idea that the government is entitled to use "extraordinary measures" in "extraordinary situations" merely provides an incentive for that government to try and get itself into as many "extraordinary situations" as it can, to thereby increase its power.

Anyway, if the situation is dire enough, then the person is de-facto compelled against their will, because they'll die too if the leak goes un-repaired. Hopefully they'll be treated as a hero for stepping up and doing their part - or some other kind of subtle enticement like that will be offered.

If you go threatening their family, or cutting off toes and/or fingers to get them to do what you want, then fine............ you'll solve this one problem this one time. Do you think it's the only crisis you'll ever encounter ever, in all of your entire future? After that guy's son sees what his family went through, maybe he decides not to learn how to fix leaks. Then next time there's a leak, you can't beat, club, or torture your way out of the situation, because there's nobody to torture, and then I guess everyone just dies, right?

All because the society was too foolish to foster the skill set it needed by enticing, instead of punishing. And, yes, this is an excellent analogy for the third world. Why do you think they don't have enough skilled workers? Do you think it's 100% lack of education opportunities? You think none of those people are intelligent enough to self teach, like from a book or the internet? Or do you think it has more to do with the prospect of some warlord beating on your family so he can get you to fix his tank for him?

It's not shortsighted. It's the only system that's proven to work in survival situation. This is way it's adopted by every successful military since the dawn of time-- they live and die together. Of course most successful leaders use other techniques as well such as words of encourage, motivating speeches about the important of sacrifice for the good of the group, and demonstrations of putting themselves at great personal risk...but as I did for through my officer years, even when you ask nicely it absolutely must be understood that its simply a matter of being polite and their life could be a personal hell if they refuse. And of course their courage or technical expertise will be recognized and celebrated even if they don't survive.

All because the society was too foolish to foster the skill set it needed by enticing,

I a complex place such as a Martian colony many of the system will only be repairable by a small number of people--those people must cooperate--one way or another.
--
As for your aside, it made me chuckle. I know many of the worse places I've been, people lack modern skills because of lack of education opportunities--not because they were being abused as much as there were few books in native languages, no electricity and sure as heck no internet--Most of all, survival takes up most of their time, even if they have opportunity. Our hypothetical colony would have the same problem--disconnected from Earth's thousands of engineers and testing opportunities, and basic maintenance task taking up so much time that most education would be learned the hard and haphazard way rather than by formal education. Once things settled down, liberties, and educational opportunities would improve.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It's not shortsighted. It's the only system that's proven to work in survival situation. This is way it's adopted by every successful military since the dawn of time-- they live and die together. Of course most successful leaders use other techniques as well such as words of encourage, motivating speeches about the important of sacrifice for the good of the group, and demonstrations of putting themselves at great personal risk...but as I did for through my officer years, even when you ask nicely it absolutely must be understood that its simply a matter of being polite and their life could be a personal hell if they refuse. And of course their courage or technical expertise will be recognized and celebrated even if they don't survive.

You can never run society at large the way you run a military unit. The military is insulated from economic concerns in that it doesn't need to devote any of its own personnel toward generating food and stuff. At most it needs logistical personnel to distribute the resources the civilian population is freely sending it. The rest of your soldiers can (effectively) aim guns at one another to keep each other in line all day.

In real life, however, you need a favorable police-to-workers ratio in order to run an economy. It's just like how you need a favorable young-to-old ratio. You feed the police by redistributing some of the wealth the workers are generating. In order to keep that favorable ratio, you need the workers to be making as many decisions as possible on their own, without a gun to their head. It's not impossible to force them. It's just horrifically inefficient.

In space..... I think efficiency of operations would be the single most important factor to survival. You need good will, and lots of it.

All because the society was too foolish to foster the skill set it needed by enticing,

I a complex place such as a Martian colony many of the system will only be repairable by a small number of people--those people must cooperate--one way or another.
--
As for your aside, it made me chuckle. I know many of the worse places I've been, people lack modern skills because of lack of education opportunities--not because they were being abused as much as there were few books in native languages, no electricity and sure as heck no internet--Most of all, survival takes up most of their time, even if they have opportunity. Our hypothetical colony would have the same problem--disconnected from Earth's thousands of engineers and testing opportunities, and basic maintenance task taking up so much time that most education would be learned the hard and haphazard way rather than by formal education. Once things settled down, liberties, and educational opportunities would improve.

I had a friend a while back (when I was Mormon) who was assigned as a missionary with the sole purpose of teaching better agriculture to small communities in Peru. It was really interesting hearing him recount his experience. He'd show them how to part the tasks out into specialized activities, and fertilize.... etc. Then they'd immediately ignore everything he had taught them, and go out as a group and waste hours upon hours doing it the way they already did it.

So I'm wondering, why not save 75% of their day?

And my best guess is, they're living in a country that has no social justice. The police are corrupt. Thugs can threaten them at will. Maybe they don't want to have a large crop? Maybe they don't want free time? Maybe it's better when the thugs come along to be able to say " Oh yeah, I'd give you 20 barrels of grain, but look, I only have just enough for my kids. I can spare 1 barrel, and if you don't kill me, I'll have another next month, and the month after that."

Now for that line to work and be believable, they can't have the thugs see them standing around doing nothing.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Lets say you arrive on a Mars colony. Something happens on earth and the colony is left on its own, and the leader dies. The various colonists want to try a new way to organize the colony and its activities.Can you imagine a method of organizing/cooperating that doesnt involve money?If theres a air leak, should the tech that knows best how to repair this leak make shia pets or jump on the task of saving the collony? Should this information air leak repair be available for free? Should individuals know if anyone else knows how to repair a leak, so that if there isnt many it can be prioritized?How do you imagine it could be organized?

I would like a system were everyone could be a leader, and every one votes. I would also want term limitations, so leaders could not get too accustomed to power.



But a complex society without money or compensation could be hard to create.
In a society some people have harder and more dangerous jobs than others.
Does a person who sweeps floors, deserve the same compensation, as someone who climbs dangerous 200 foot ladders?

The society would also need highly educated people to do things like build computers and do medical procedures.
What compensation could there be without money?
Perhaps the people that did the dangerous and hard jobs, could be compensated with the best food or homes.




But what if something happened and everyone became a group that loved/respected each other, and compensation would no longer be needed.
Imagine there was a air leak 200 feet off the ground, and it was very dangerous to fix the leak. What if someone would naturally volunteer to fix it, not for compensation, but rather to save their family and friends from dieing.

What if some people wanted to be doctors or computer makers, because its what they love to do. And the respect they got from everyone else, was compensation enough for the time spent on education and working. And perhaps these high level workers would get extra respect and handouts, because they are the ones that do the hardest jobs.

And I believe/know if a group of people are stranded some were without money, they come together to insure their mutual survival. Like the survivors of a airplane crash do.
The only problem is that the group on Mars would need someone to make medicine, computers, ex.ex.ex.



I was listening to a man that lived in a community give a speech. A community is a place were several families/couples/ people live together. They grow/raise their own food, fix their own cars ex.ex.ex and in a way there is no money in these communities. The man was talking about the time of year when their peaches got ripe, and how everyone would go out to the fields to pick the peaches, he said there was a magical feeling in the air when that was going on. I believe most people in our present societies have lost touch with that feeling, they search for money, instead of that connection with family, friends, and nature (or the things that are actually around them.)



I think the most important thing for that group on Mars, is to keep their society complex, and able to produce all goods and services needed.

All knowledge would have to be stored on computers. (Perhaps) computers programs could guide average people, to do (some) of the tasks of doctors and computer makers, walking the average person through the steps of fixing broken bones or making computers.
But would you want me operating on your heart or brain guided by a computer? No.
I believe there would have to be people trained, and with experience to do certain tasks.

But today there are already machines that can do cancer removal operations without even cutting the patient. Perhaps machines would be able to do most dental, medical, and computer making work. And the most important jobs would be making, fixing, and maintaining these machines.



That group on Mars would need to access their resources and needs, in a way we don't do today.
And they would need to keep a large enough population, to provide the workers to do all needed tasks. They would also need extras.

Perhaps when the children were young and in school, they would have to find the students to fill the societies needed jobs.
Perhaps some would only complete high school, and only a few would go to college just like our present societies.

And perhaps the high level workers love for their community, and the extra respect given to them, would be enough compensation for the jobs the do.
Along with a few extra handouts (like the lady next door, bringing a doctor some fresh bread, just because he keeps her children healthy for no compensation.)

Originally Posted by chad

But what if something happened and everyone became a group that loved/respected each other, and compensation would no longer be needed.
Imagine there was a air leak 200 feet off the ground, and it was very dangerous to fix the leak. What if someone would naturally volunteer to fix it, not for compensation, but rather to save their family and friends from dieing.

And that's the problem. As long as the human mind has some chaos in it, there will always be at least a few outliers in every group who differ from the norms of their society. There will always be someone who doesn't love and respect the rest, and simply takes advantage of the others' giving attitude.

The only alternative is to eliminate all chaos from the human mind, in which case we would no longer be descernibly "alive". More like machines or something, with human faces.

What if some people wanted to be doctors or computer makers, because its what they love to do. And the respect they got from everyone else, was compensation enough for the time spent on education and working. And perhaps these high level workers would get extra respect and handouts, because they are the ones that do the hardest jobs.

And I believe/know if a group of people are stranded some were without money, they come together to insure their mutual survival. Like the survivors of a airplane crash do.
The only problem is that the group on Mars would need someone to make medicine, computers, ex.ex.ex.

I doubt anyone wants to do those things in a way where the money truly doesn't matter. If everyone chooses by preference alone, most will become artists or athletes or study something easy.

There will always be at least a few professions nobody truly wants to do, but which society needs someone to do.

And perhaps the high level workers love for their community, and the extra respect given to them, would be enough compensation for the jobs the do.
Along with a few extra handouts (like the lady next door, bringing a doctor some fresh bread, just because he keeps her children healthy for no compensation.)

It's true there was a time when the medical profession used to be like that. It works on a small town level. There are fewer outliers in a small town, and the community is more aware of them so it can coordinate to deal with them. A super large community, however, can't remember who everyone is. It has to use badges or something.

Kojax,

I agree that there will always be a few outliers in a group who dont respect the rest.
But I believe that any group, will have a DNA controlled behavior, that will want/help their species/group to survive.

And what if that chaos in the human mind, is caused by the structure of our present societies. A chaos were we always worry about something, and a chaos caused by the people around us, not caring about everyones happiness or wellbeing. In human groups that still live in the jungle, they care about everyones happiness and wellbeing.

With all respects lots of people don't care about money. Some doctors graduate from medical school and then go to work in the jungle for no pay. Some lawyers graduate and work for poor clients for free. Many people are teachers for the young, because its what they like to do.

I believe nature gave us all different behaviors, we all have our own talents. Some of us love money, and some of us could care less about money (but most people do want enough money to survive.)

And I also must disagree with your statement "there will always be at least a few professions nobody truly wants to do, but which society needs someone to do."

Perhaps there are professions that no one truly wants to do, but still the job gets filled. Perhaps its our species natural behavior to make sure all needed jobs get done.

I can not think of a single needed job position on Earth, that does not have a person to fill it.

I personally believe that humans will always come together in some way, to guarantee our species survival (whether there is money are no money) I think its in our DNA.

Have a good one,
Chad.

In human groups that still live in the jungle, they care about everyones happiness and wellbeing.

Balderdash. You are expressing the "noble savage" myth.

Here's something to consider...a study of violence of one of those larger jungle tribes. It's a brutal world where a third of the men are killed by another man or group of men, nearly half participate in killing of another man by age 25. It's about raids for resources, revenge killings and a violent sense of justice wrapped in superstition justifications being a routine part of life.

http://www.class.uh.edu/faculty/tsom...e yanomamo.pdf

--
I would hope our colonist come up with something a heck of a lot better than trying to steal and cap each other off in inter-colonial blood feuds.

Originally Posted by chad

Kojax,

I agree that there will always be a few outliers in a group who dont respect the rest.
But I believe that any group, will have a DNA controlled behavior, that will want/help their species/group to survive.

DNA allows for birth defects.

And what if that chaos in the human mind, is caused by the structure of our present societies. A chaos were we always worry about something, and a chaos caused by the people around us, not caring about everyones happiness or wellbeing. In human groups that still live in the jungle, they care about everyones happiness and wellbeing.

I don't think it has anything to do with them being in the jungle. It probably has more to do with the smallness of the community. In a small enough community, a single selfish individual will likely be identified and shunned or exiled. Not always, but usually.

That's why family is usually more reliable than other types of friends. Small group with exclusive membership and everybody knows everybody.

I believe nature gave us all different behaviors, we all have our own talents. Some of us love money, and some of us could care less about money (but most people do want enough money to survive.)

It gave us different behaviors, but a specialized society needs specific numbers of people doing specific jobs in specific ratios to each other.

The ratios are a little bit flexible, but not a lot flexible. If you leave it up to what people want to do, then you're essentially choosing those ratios at random, and then you'll probably get a mix that doesn't work. Like maybe 100 painters, and only 10 carpenters. So those painters are always standing around waiting for a wall to get built so they can paint it.

And I also must disagree with your statement "there will always be at least a few professions nobody truly wants to do, but which society needs someone to do."

Perhaps there are professions that no one truly wants to do, but still the job gets filled. Perhaps its our species natural behavior to make sure all needed jobs get done.

In a capitalist society, what happens is the pay increases until somebody fills it.

The only part of human nature that results from is the ability of people to accept doing a job they hate if the money is good enough.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

In human groups that still live in the jungle, they care about everyones happiness and wellbeing.

Balderdash. You are expressing of the "noble savage" myth.

Here's something to consider...a study of violence of one of those larger jungle tribes. It's a brutal world where a third of the men are killed by another man or group of men, nearly half participate in killing of another man by age 25. It's about raids for resources, revenge killings and a violent sense of justice wrapped in superstition justifications being a routine part of life.

http://www.class.uh.edu/faculty/tsom...e yanomamo.pdf

--
I would hope our colonist come up with something a heck of a lot better than trying to steal and cap each other off in inter-colonial blood feuds.

"noble savage" myth? No, its the noble savage fact.

Examples,

If you knew anything about the african pygmy's, you would know that they care more about their neighbors, than anyone on planet Earth.

Or go watch the TV show "Meet The Natives"
Meet the Natives: USA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These people from the island of Tanna, Vanuatu, have a love and respect for their community members, that no "civilized" person could ever achieve.

People that still live in the jungle, have a love and respect for each other, that no "civilized" culture can come close to.

They also respect their elders in a way no "civilized" culture could ever do.

These "savages" do not let their children go without food like Americans do.
These "savages" do not let their community members be homeless like Americans do.
These "savages" do not withhold medicine from community members like americans do.
ex.ex.ex.ex.


GW Bush is 100x more warped in violent superstition, than any tribal person in the source you listed. GW Bush kills innocent people who dont even want to fight. GW Bush attacked Iraq for no reason, and killed 1,000's of little children. At least these tribal people kill men who want to be in the action.


I am sorry if I was rude,
Chad.


I also want to add, that by me using the words "savage" and "civilized", I mean in no way, to imply that you are a racist.
I state for the record that you are not.

[QUOTE=chad;358938]

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

"noble savage" myth? No, its the noble savage fact.

Examples,


These people from the island of Tanna, Vanuatu, have a love and respect for their community members, that no "civilized" person could ever achieve.

Yes it's a perfect culture of men killing each other even in modern times with machetes....have you ever been chased by a man swinging a machete?
"Villagers from the islands of Ambrym and Tanna fought with machetes and knives. Local police said the ethnic violence was the worst the Melanesian nation had ever seen." Of course the resolution to the feuding was to swap children between tribes.... do you think it would work for our colonist having chiefs tell parents they have to give their kids to an enemy family? I don't think so. Now you can believe the pleasant TV show, or program designed to attract tourism to the pacific islands....or the news and serious studies which show the prominence of violence in both modern and pre-history cultures. Tribal cultures were no panacea -- most of the evidence suggest they were more often than not a horrible and violent existance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6426877.stm

http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Keeley/War-Before-Civilization.html
ScienceDirect.com - Aggression and Violent Behavior - Examining the evidence from small-scale societies and early prehistory and implications for modern theories of aggression and violence

[QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;358941]

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

"noble savage" myth? No, its the noble savage fact.

Examples,


These people from the island of Tanna, Vanuatu, have a love and respect for their community members, that no "civilized" person could ever achieve.

Yes it's a perfect culture of men killing each other even in modern times with machetes....have you ever been chased by a man swinging a machete?
"Villagers from the islands of Ambrym and Tanna fought with machetes and knives. Local police said the ethnic violence was the worst the Melanesian nation had ever seen." Of course the resolution to the feuding was to swap children between tribes.... do you think it would work for our colonist having chiefs tell parents they have to give their kids to an enemy family? I don't think so. Now you can believe the pleasant TV show, or program designed to attract tourism to the pacific islands....or the news and serious studies which show the prominence of violence in both modern and pre-history cultures. Tribal cultures were no panacea -- most of the evidence suggest they were more often than not a horrible and violent existance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6426877.stm

http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Keeley/War-Before-Civilization.html
ScienceDirect.com - Aggression and Violent Behavior - Examining the evidence from small-scale societies and early prehistory and implications for modern theories of aggression and violence

Perhaps we are both correct in a way.

You being correct that there is more violence in tribal groups.

And me being correct that tribal groups respect their tribes children, parents, elders, and ecosystems more than modern cultures.


Your last post made me think, perhaps when humans get in a certain group formation (like these tribal groups), the violence you speak of naturally happens?

And I dont think the TV show "Meet The Natives" was fake. I think those people were for real. I believe you are correct about the violence you spoke of there. But the group that was on the show found peace, and then came to America to share it with us.

But who knows?

Chad I think the problem is that you're looking at pockets of a larger society and trying to judge the whole society by just a few people. At least your form of this is positive, seeing a few positive examples and imagining that all people of that kind are the same.

If you met the right group of Americans, you might think all Americans are wonderful and kind also.

Originally Posted by chad

And me being correct that tribal groups respect their tribes children, parents, elders, and ecosystems more than modern cultures.

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume primitive small group willingness respect and cooperate with other doesn't go much further than their genetic investments. Even in those situations, direct competitors with siblings could often turn to violence--stories of brothers killing each other are among humans oldest stories. Non-relatives are forfeit unless they are of value in some other way--such as a source of valuable trade. Only the veneers of civilization seems to change this. Given few in a colony would be many unrelated people how does a colony maintain that veneer and pass it from generation to generation while being flexible enough to change some standards to survive. Our colony wouldn't be the first groups to face such challenges. As an example the viking colonies on Greenland died of starvation though surrounded by bountiful waters at least in part because of prohibitions about eating fish.

Reactions to the initial comments (wbb for later comments), sorry if its long:

"I'd default to proven survival leadership techniques. People are nominated, one is put in charge. If time isn't urgent, everyone gets a say, but the decision rest with that leader"

There are partial aspects about this that I agree with, I would make sure the person nominated as "leader" (or "coordinator") would not have indirect influence over his own nomination and only have leadership within a specific sphere of activity/situation to avoid the 'hey jonhson fetch me a coffee', that all decisions/information be transparent, and the coordination role to be revokable.


But I think I would prefer to have a certain level of organization that would allow each individual to have basic qualifications for basic activities, and allocate part time on training and work.




I would have colony priorities established (1-Emergency, 2-Operation, 3-Maintenance/Prevention, 4-R&D, 5-Projects, 6-Arts/Leisure) and identify the skills/training required for each field. Then starting from the top you list the training required for the colony to function(the must have basics to expert, and the nice to have basics) and who(and how many) have these. Once this is done, priorities for which there's a lack of participants/volunteers get highlighted.
I would have a system to organize tasks and jobs, that allows participants to volunteer as responsible(does it), standby(addition or substitute), coordinator(advisor, additional staff), which would highlight tasks for which there is less (qualified) volunteers.




I would include functional training as part of the work time. A colonist that's an expert in hydroponics or that has a broad range of basic training(temporary leak fix, FirstAid/CPR, etc) is an asset to the colony.


Then have a set amount of work (tasks plus functional training) that varies, each colonist having 1, 2 or 3 blocks of work a week. Colonists doing more of unpopular/specialized tasks would get less or no time in other blocks, colonists that would volunteer for more popular tasks(more likely to be on standby) would have more time in other blocks of work.

"We wouldn't want to adopt a system where the person who knows how can be compelled against their will to fix the leak. "

Id learn. If no one fixes a leak, my own life is in danger, the more people know how, the more chances someone will be able to fix and call for help sooner rather than later. Its like a termite nest gets damaged, the termite aware starts fixing it asap, it doesnt walk over to the queen and ask if anyones interested (my guess is that colonies in which the closest termite didnt fix damage on the double got wiped out more often). Note that in a large room with a crowd, if all individuals rush out in case of fire, many might get trampled and sometimes none could escape(if doors open on the inside) , but if the people are coordinated like a military unit or just basic trainng, everyone gets out no problem. Once I know how to fix the leak, Im not going to hoard it like a privilege/trade secret/secret recipe/7herbs and spices/Chevron's electric car battery patent, on the contrary, I'll genuinely help others since those wont be rivals for getting a treat but the more people know the easier it will be for me and them.

"That's called "shortsightedness"."

You know first aid, you play volleyball with friends and someone jumps and lands on his ankle, are you going to "volunteer" to help, or will you say, "hey wait a minute buddy, caugh up some cash", or sit around and watch other friends half-baked attempts to help, or the submarine sinks, are you going to watch water pour in from a valve saying "Hey its the turn of Jimmy thats in the infirmary with the flu, to fix it, Ive got water to my knees but someone go fetch him" or would you rather say "holy crap hand me that wrench". On the other hand, though you might say to the guy next to you "hand me that wrench" (functional request in functional situation) you would not have a generic "hierarchic authority" to say "hey, the leak is fixed, fetch me a coffee Johnson, Im the leader around here".

"You can never run society at large the way you run a military unit. "

Agreed, hence I think you need fields of expertise and priority categories, transparency and the option to change a coordinator. I also think a more democratic and open society(less insulated corporatisms and hierachies) to what exist now would be better.

"The man was talking about the time of year when their peaches got ripe, and how everyone would go out to the fields to pick the peaches"

Good example, its functional, the same way a plumber that knows how to do first aid can stop and do something other than plumbing for 4 minutes to save someones life in an accident(event/conditions driven) and postpone the toilet fixing. It reminds me, during an Ice Storm, a lot of people were taking time off of whatever to help other people find sheler etc. Or during a different winter once a car was sliding on ice in a slope, blocking traffic, our current paradigm's reation (for others was to be mad at the guy) people were honking, but then you realize, if he doesnt go up, Im not going up either(by virtue of cursing), so I got out to help and soon other did too.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by chad

And me being correct that tribal groups respect their tribes children, parents, elders, and ecosystems more than modern cultures.

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume primitive small group willingness respect and cooperate with other doesn't go much further than their genetic investments. Even in those situations, direct competitors with siblings could often turn to violence--stories of brothers killing each other are among humans oldest stories. Non-relatives are forfeit unless they are of value in some other way--such as a source of valuable trade. Only the veneers of civilization seems to change this. Given few in a colony would be many unrelated people how does a colony maintain that veneer and pass it from generation to generation while being flexible enough to change some standards to survive. Our colony wouldn't be the first groups to face such challenges. As an example the viking colonies on Greenland died of starvation though surrounded by bountiful waters at least in part because of prohibitions about eating fish.

Since we cant get off the subject of tribal violence, lets look at modern Western cultures violence.

Like World War II and the death caused by that.
World War II had the Holocaust, they took little Jewish children, and killed them in gas chambers, and then burned their bodies.
They killed 6 million Jewish people, and they used much more brutal methods, than tribal groups.

Or the Vietnam war, US troops killed 1,000's of innocent people, we killed little children. How many little kids in Vietnam, had their eyes, legs, and arms blown off?

Or the Iraq war, America killed 100,000 innocent people. they killed 1,000's of little children. How many kids in Iraq dont have eyes, legs, or arms because of modern culture?


Yes tribal groups have a lot of violence, but they kill men, who want to be in the action.

Modern Western cultures kill innocent people, and they kill little children.


Tribal groups kill (willing) men with knives. But modern Western cultures blow off little kids arms and legs, and then leave these children alive, laying in a pool of their own blood.


Who is more savage?

Or who has more honor, the killers of willing men, or the killers of innocent children?

Since we cant get off the subject of tribal violence

I only went there because you made an unsupported statement about how they "care about everyones happiness and wellbeing." which I know, based on the studies, is completely and utterly inaccurate.

I also never claimed larger societies were not violent--they certainly can be.

I would think knowing how to repair air leaks would be something taught to everyone. Some would have more experience and specialised skills of course but what to do in a pressure leak emergency would be something thoroughly prepared and drilled for.

Until a colony is large and well established I'd expect the organisational model to more resemble that of military in a war zone - people making their objections and suggestions in the planning sessions only, then doing what they are assigned to do and not deviating too much once the decisions and plans (with contingencies) are made except in exceptional circumstances. The ever present dangers make coordination and organisation essential and preclude too much individual freedom to do as you please. Freedom would have to wait. There would need to be a clear organisational structure that passes on the authority should the ones in command be incommunicado, incapacitated or killed.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Since we cant get off the subject of tribal violence

I only went there because you made an unsupported statement about how they "care about everyones happiness and wellbeing." which I know, based on the studies, is completely and utterly inaccurate.

I also never claimed larger societies were not violent--they certainly can be.

I concede (some or most) tribal cultures have feuds, were many men are killed.

But at the same time, they respect members of their own community, more than any Western Culture (with the exception of ultra-liberal European countries.)

Have a great night/day,
Chad.

Originally Posted by kojax

Chad I think the problem is that you're looking at pockets of a larger society and trying to judge the whole society by just a few people. At least your form of this is positive, seeing a few positive examples and imagining that all people of that kind are the same.

If you met the right group of Americans, you might think all Americans are wonderful and kind also.

With all respects, I know all that stuff already.

Chad.

I apologize for all the stuff I posted in this thread, about Western cultures dueling, I deleted it.
I just happened to re-read it, and I have (never) been so embarrassed in all of my life.
I hope I did not offend anyone.

Chad.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"We wouldn't want to adopt a system where the person who knows how can be compelled against their will to fix the leak. "

Id learn. If no one fixes a leak, my own life is in danger, the more people know how, the more chances someone will be able to fix and call for help sooner rather than later. Its like a termite nest gets damaged, the termite aware starts fixing it asap, it doesnt walk over to the queen and ask if anyones interested (my guess is that colonies in which the closest termite didnt fix damage on the double got wiped out more often). Note that in a large room with a crowd, if all individuals rush out in case of fire, many might get trampled and sometimes none could escape(if doors open on the inside) , but if the people are coordinated like a military unit or just basic trainng, everyone gets out no problem. Once I know how to fix the leak, Im not going to hoard it like a privilege/trade secret/secret recipe/7herbs and spices/Chevron's electric car battery patent, on the contrary, I'll genuinely help others since those wont be rivals for getting a treat but the more people know the easier it will be for me and them.

"That's called "shortsightedness"."

You know first aid, you play volleyball with friends and someone jumps and lands on his ankle, are you going to "volunteer" to help, or will you say, "hey wait a minute buddy, caugh up some cash", or sit around and watch other friends half-baked attempts to help, or the submarine sinks, are you going to watch water pour in from a valve saying "Hey its the turn of Jimmy thats in the infirmary with the flu, to fix it, Ive got water to my knees but someone go fetch him" or would you rather say "holy crap hand me that wrench". On the other hand, though you might say to the guy next to you "hand me that wrench" (functional request in functional situation) you would not have a generic "hierarchic authority" to say "hey, the leak is fixed, fetch me a coffee Johnson, Im the leader around here".

The problem is if you're the only one with that skill set and the volume of work gets too big for just one person to do. Suppose every day you're getting presented with 50 smashed ankles, and each person in line expects they should be the one you see first.

Large groups of people who need a scarce resource behave more or less like locusts. They don't stop and think about how big your work load already is. They're desperate to have their need satisfied, and only see that dealing with that need would only cost you an hour or a few minutes. - which would be true if they were the only one. So what I mean is everyone thinks like they're the only one.

Suppose you try to take a break, go to the bathroom, or lay down to sleep for a few hours while there are still 100 people in line? They think you're being inconsiderate because you're letting them suffer when you could have just stayed awake "one more minute" for them.

The money system helps solve this by creating an illusion. They think the reason you didn't see them is because they didn't have enough money. They think if everyone in line had had twice as much money, that you would have helped everyone in line. The reality is that a certain X percentage of them were not going to get helped no matter how much money they had. It's easier for them at accept that the reason they "weren't special enough" to be in the front of the line is because they were poor, rather than just because they drew the short straw.

To become a successful space colony is going to require efficient organisation; when it's become a largish economy with lots of fail-safes, safeguards and reserves there can be freedom to choose and refuse but until then withholding your expertise when it's needed would be an anti-social act. How that obligation is formatted can be varied - it could be contractual/legal or it could be social and moral but it's going to be there. If that sense of community, team, civic responsibility, voluntary subservience to authority (whatever it's called) is so weak that an emergency sees everyone looking out for number one and screw the rest - a breakdown of civil order - that's a recipe for failure and failure in such a hostile physical environment equals death. If not immediately then soon enough. I'd be surprised if a budding space colony would have many people who aren't doing things that aren't essential, although some may be in a position where withholding their expertise could have such immediate consequences that they can hold the rest to ransom and demand privileges but I suggest that would be a symptom of a breakdown of civil order that would result in a slow death rather than quick one for the colony as a whole.

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

To become a successful space colony is going to require efficient organisation; when it's become a largish economy with lots of fail-safes, safeguards and reserves there can be freedom to choose and refuse but until then withholding your expertise when it's needed would be an anti-social act.

The question is what counts as "withholding"? If you're the only medic and you aren't on your feet 18 hours every day tending to the hordes of wounded that come pouring in, nonstop for months and years on end - willing to sacrifice every vestige of what might be considered a "quality of life", and live worse than most criminals do in prison, then you're bad and someone should punish you?

Clearly they can't throw you in jail, or you'd stop working. So what? Chain your leg to the wall? Hold your wife and/or children hostage?

although some may be in a position where withholding their expertise could have such immediate consequences that they can hold the rest to ransom and demand privileges but I suggest that would be a symptom of a breakdown of civil order that would result in a slow death rather than quick one for the colony as a whole.

I see the concern about holding everyone for ransom, like if the task were trivially easy but required special knowledge and only one person could do it.

I'm thinking there's a balance here. If the colony can't offer a decent quality of life to people who learn special skills, then none of the children in their schools are going to want to learn those skills. Most of them will go after the skill set that gets the best treatment. Using cruelty to force them to accept bad conditions will only worsen the long term situation by making even fewer children want to learn those skills.

On the other hand, if the people with those skills are being treated fairly, and on a level commensurate with the effort they had to put forth to gain those skills, so they wouldn't regret learning them, and then they start trying to demand more because they know their role is essential, then I might see a bit of compulsion as possibly necessary or appropriate.

And... the most appropriate form of compulsion would be to withhold access to those skills and resources they depend on everyone else for. If he's the medic, then make it clear you won't be continuing to maintain the life support in his bedchamber if he doesn't tend to the wounded. If he's the air leak fixer, then make it clear that the next time he's injured, nobody's going to tend to him.

Kojax, I think the example you start with is a case of poor organisation and mismanagement; a mismatch of skills to requirements. If it's a case of a disaster/emergency where lots of skilled personnel are lost it still gets back to organising the personnel and resources that are left, first to get through the initial crisis and then to re-organise to spread the greater load. Clear inequity of workload in that circumstance is going to have consequences. An excess load can land on few shoulders but allowing that to persist unnecessarily would be a foreseeable and, with good organisation, avoidable problem. If its a colony cut off from outside help, with limited resources and personnel, that capacity to organise effectively becomes even more crucial. The medic gets overworked but the lives being saved would almost certainly be essential to the colony's survival and ultimately essential to the medic's survival as well.

Note that if it's all cheap and easy to set up a colony - technology far in advance of our own - then it could be made up of people with limited skills reliant on intelligent machines and self-replicating automation, but I'm very doubtful of that; more likely it will need to be made up of multi skilled workaholic perfectionists and it will be very difficult, due to the high minimum technological capital requirements, to be self supporting and truly self reliant. Especially if cut off unexpectedly and permanently from that source of all that technology - Earth.

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

Kojax, I think the example you start with is a case of poor organisation and mismanagement; a mismatch of skills to requirements. If it's a case of a disaster/emergency where lots of skilled personnel are lost it still gets back to organising the personnel and resources that are left, first to get through the initial crisis and then to re-organise to spread the greater load.

This is the reality now. Most people who make a whole lot of money doing something, the reason is because society needs their skill set and very few people have it. The reason they're paid so much is because driving the price up is the most convenient way to keep their workload at a reasonable level. Only those with lots and lots of money can afford to hire them, and only for a few hours.

That's what's going on "under the hood" so to speak in our modern capitalist society. An example would be a highly skilled surgeon, the best in his/her field, who can do a very complicated surgery. Clearly your run of the mill HMO isn't going to cover hiring that person. People may die who that person could have helped, but if you're rich enough you can hire them and they'll save your life. The price keeps their workload reasonable so that they're free to enjoy their life and go golfing and stuff, but also keeps them interested in working as many hours as they can to keep drawing fees. It also serves to reward their exceptional effort and/or talent. (Whatever it is they did that made the quality of their skills able to exceed that of the next 20 surgeons who they out perform.)

Clear inequity of workload in that circumstance is going to have consequences. An excess load can land on few shoulders but allowing that to persist unnecessarily would be a foreseeable and, with good organisation, avoidable problem.

It's only avoidable if we're talking about a skill that has no talent component. Some skills may require so much natural ability that it is impossible to train more than a tiny percent of the population to do them.

Ninja-hood comes to mind. (Or maybe a Navy Seal, for things we know really exist.)

If its a colony cut off from outside help, with limited resources and personnel, that capacity to organise effectively becomes even more crucial. The medic gets overworked but the lives being saved would almost certainly be essential to the colony's survival and ultimately essential to the medic's survival as well.

And everyone around him will breathe a sigh of relief and think to themselves "I'm sure glad I don't have medical skills". Otherwise they'd be in the same situation as that poor overworked medic, getting kicked and beaten into working some more every time he starts to fall asleep.

Good luck finding students who want to learn that skill set after they've seen the example you made of that guy. I know you may want the message to be "work hard for the common good", but really the message is "don't be a medic."

People who naturally had the talent to be great medics will choose instead to be mediocre school teachers, maintenance techs, or floor cleaners.

"The problem is if you're the only one with that skill set and the volume of work gets too big for just one person to do. Suppose every day you're getting presented with 50 smashed ankles, and each person in line expects they should be the one you see first."

Thats why the organization I would strive to establish would place a high priority on training and identify tasks that require more assistance among priorities so that training, prevention, automation for this can get a priority.

"So what I mean is everyone thinks like they're the only one."

Yes, its like the imaginary bar scene in the movie a Beautiful Mind. This is more true (in some respect) in places new to civilization or in some cultures(not wanting to point fingers), but civilization has a learning curve and I think people can eventually understand and the culture can adapt to facilitate awareness of the big picture.

"Suppose you try to take a break, go to the bathroom, or lay down to sleep for a few hours while there are still 100 people in line? They think you're being inconsiderate"

Then theres a cultural mental barrier exacerbated by our system corroded by corporatism(petty group self-interest), cookie cutter catergories and shallow job label to apply to a person, trade secrets, hierarhy etc; because the first aid is not an innate magical power by someone that lays on hands, its applied knowledge. The person that can do it, did not know about it before he started learning. In todays system, an expert derives value from how rare the knowledge is, and has a partial built in conflict of interest from making the knowledge widely available or even automated, no one want to make their job obsolete. People that make Washig machines dont want to make less machines needed and have machines that last for 50 years or they would be out of a job, in a monetary system being out of a job is bad, but in an intelligent organization for a mars base, being out of a job is a good thing, preventing a problem is a good thing, having other people able to replace you or the job you do automated is a good thing. It give you more time to do other stuff, volunteer for other things. So the greater the need vs the number of volunteers, the greater the focus for it (training, prevention, automation R&D).

"then you're bad and someone should punish you?"

No since training would be high on the priority list, as would the prevention of whats causing injuries, and the automation of any tasks that are required to reduce your work load, up to eventual medical robots down the road.

"then none of the children in their schools are going to want to learn those skills."

Kids learn what is thought to them, and its relatively easier to get them interested in something that is usefull for others.

"skill set that gets the best treatment."

This is cultural, the same way kids from racist parents learned racist patterns. Its possible to give greater visibility to orientations that are more needed without a promisse of making money, specially if the services and colonies food are granted without requiring money, but what could be is that high demand/high specialization occupations grant less mandatory work on secondary tasks (ex: 1 hour a month instead of 3 hours a week on other work).

"Most people who make a whole lot of money doing something"

Whats more uselfull a financial derivative instrument money making Bernie Madoff that makes a lot of money on earth, or a less money-making engineer that can repair the life suport air systems or a botanist that can make sure the plants in hydroponics dont die off? Money is irrelevant to sustaining life, its an illusion, if you have a million dollars on mars but no seeds and hydroponic systems you die. If the water recycling system is defective and you cant repair it but know how to calculate interest rates and cash bonuses, you die.

a sigh of relief and think to themselves "I'm sure glad I don't have medical skills".

If theres one medic, the work load goes down with each person that gets to learn to be a medic, or that can learn a task to make the medics job easier. Other people ought to get a red flag, so that anyone with ideas from engineers, knowledge systems programmers, to inventors etc, get to think about ways in which they can remedy the situation with their existing skill set, or apply ways to prevent some of the medial problems, or learn to help out as helpers or medics. Knowing that, If the botanist is in bed sick, you want him to be back on his feet tending to hydro crops and training others, also if the other guy that volunteers for cleaning public corridors as part of his mandatory work is in bed with pain, someone else on stand by will have to pick up the slack, so imo its in everyone's interest to have training and be able to help where theres a need.

really the message is "don't be a medic."

imo thats a monetary system mindset, oozing with the opposite of cooperation and with conflicts of interest, and I think a lot of people would step up to the plate and collectively make the medic's task easier. If ten people work a few days a week, the medic could also cut back to a part time job and spend time on training others, supervising, being on stand-by and spending time on recerational activities, this would be better for the colony imo. A lot of people would not have the barrier of its not my job to, im not paid to, but would be asking what can I do to help? I guess it depends on the colonists cultural background, if you have wall street ceos, cigarette marketing mercenaries and mafia henchmen you might not have a culture of helping out even if its in your self-survival)

This is exactly why it's so important that for any future space colony inventory planning, lots and lots of Double Bubble chewing gum be included on the requisition forms. That way air leaks won't be a big deal. You just get a couple of guys to mash their Double Bubble in the rupture, and within a couple of days, that goop'll dry harder than kryptonite (you ever try to get it off the bottom of a table?).