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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

Fahrenheit 451 - Bradbury
1984 - Orwell
Foundation Series - Asimov
The Space Merchants - Pohl
Dune - Herbert
The Lensman Series - Smith
Perdido Street Station - Mieville

---

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.

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.

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.

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

---

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????

So the long term solution is obvious. We must go to the stars!

(Or at least make spacefarers of our convicts and religious misfits ;-)

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?

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?