Two political questions that seem timely

[Gary Childress]

Assuming that colonizing space is both necessary for survival (and therefore has some temporal expedience) and is also realistically possible for human beings, could a successful program to colonize space be carried out entirely by an "anarchist" commune?

And if there were no "anarchists", would there be any humane boundaries that authorities wouldn't have others thoughtlessly transgress on someone else in order to achieve such a goal of colonizing space?

[Walker]

Assuming that colonizing space is both necessary for survival (and therefore has some temporal expedience) and is also realistically possible for human beings, could a successful program to colonize space be carried out entirely by an "anarchist" commune?

And if there were no "anarchists", would there be any humane boundaries that authorities wouldn't have others thoughtlessly transgress on someone else in order to achieve such a goal of colonizing space?

1. Lord of the Flies

2. Captain Kirk

[Walker]

#2. Captain Kirk

Kirk often defied The Prime Directive by interfering with natural selection, thereby either corrupting the natural processes of the universe, or else proving in episodic fashion that Man is a natural element of the natural world and thus a legitimate natural force of intelligence in the universe rather than merely a consuming destroyer… much like the intelligence of the British Empire in its heyday, often unfortunately considered to be the Brutish Empire.

The latter description of Man as a non-corrupting force in the universe, proven by Kirk as the representative of humanity, is Man* representative of the natural force of intelligence that organizes complex systems to host life, and counteracts entropy in a closed system.

That evil old entropy ...


*including Wo-man

[MikeNovack]

Assuming that colonizing space is both necessary for survival (and therefore has some temporal expedience) and is also realistically possible for human beings, could a successful program to colonize space be carried out entirely by an "anarchist" commune?

You should leave colonizing space out of it.

You general question is, could a society composed of anarchist communes support a project too large for any one of the communes by itself? If you answer yes, how might that be done? << you should not have too much trouble finding discussions of this by "left libertarians" (social anarchists, as opposed to individualist anarchists*) >>

* But be aware, some usually associated with "libertarians" (individualist anarchists) had surprising connections to the labor movement, self described as "socialist", etc. In other words, the distinctions between "left" and "right" anarchists are subtle and make sense only discussed within the context of anarchism.

[Fairy]

Assuming that colonizing space is both necessary for survival (and therefore has some temporal expedience) and is also realistically possible for human beings, could a successful program to colonize space be carried out entirely by an "anarchist" commune?

And if there were no "anarchists", would there be any humane boundaries that authorities wouldn't have others thoughtlessly transgress on someone else in order to achieve such a goal of colonizing space?

Space is filled with intense radiation that would eventually destroy any biological organism. So humans could never colonise space.

Space is never affected by the intense radiation. Space is indestructible. And yet biological organisms are made of atoms which is empty space.

https://youtu.be/OzRzTwjkxeU?is=R_FJO30u-VYb4y8a

If you want to know why the body that’s made of empty space dies upon forceful impact with a seemingly hard solid surface. Ask A I… it will explain why.

[Walker]

On a galactic scale in an open universe

God is the organizing intelligence that keeps entropy at bay

In a seemingly uncompromising, unfair way.

[Walker]

Space is filled with intense radiation that would eventually destroy any biological organism. So humans could never colonise space.

Spores could, burrowed in asteroids, and you know what they say about evolution.

[Fairy]

On a galactic scale in an open universe

God is the organizing intelligence that keeps entropy at bay

In a seemingly uncompromising, unfair way.

Yes, however, we cannot know this, because we are this.

[Fairy]

Space is filled with intense radiation that would eventually destroy any biological organism. So humans could never colonise space.

Spores could, burrowed in asteroids, and you know what they say about evolution.

Sounds like alien consciousness. But that’s just another story.

[Impenitent]

timely? sand does not fall through an hourglass in zero gravity...

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

timely? sand does not fall through an hourglass in zero gravity...
-Imp

Actually, given enough time, I would expect an hourglass i space (in zero gravity) to have about half the sand in the upper half and half in the lower.

Puzzles you. Consider the experiment done here on earth, just take away gravity. An hour glass filled with a liquid and very small balls of something else that would not dissolve in the liquid and are of the same "specific gravity" (density) as the liquid. We start out at T1 with all the balls in the top half. Do you expect them all to stay there? As they randomly move about, there is a probability of a ball drifting through the connecting tube (we are assuming ball size << tube diameter). Also a probability of a ball drifting up through the tube, but initially that would be zero (no balls down there at the start. As long as the probability of balls drifting down is greater than the probability of balls drifting up, more balls will drift down than up. When the number of balls in both halves is the same, the probabilities would be equal.

[Impenitent]

filling the hourglass with water does not take away gravity

laying it on its side and spinning it about the center might create enough centripetal force to move the balls to either half, but not if it is standing...

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

filling the hourglass with water does not take away gravity

laying it on its side and spinning it about the center might create enough centripetal force to move the balls to either half, but not if it is standing...

Gravity still present but having no effect on the balls. Being the same density as water, just like a gigantic water molecule.

OK, pretend the water molecules were large enough to see and that at the start one quarter of them on the top half were white and three quarters black (so dark gray) AND in the bottom half all white. Do you think over time the top half stays the same shade of gray and the bottom half stays pristine while. Or would the bottom half get grayer and the top half a lighter gray till both the same shade.

PS: Einstein's first Nobel Prize would be connected to how long that might take.

[Walker]

Sounds like alien consciousness. But that’s just another story.

Suppertime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r46YZJSfxks

Levi Stubbs is great, but the backup singers put it over the top.
(The bass deserves a lot of credit)
That brass percussion, light tinkling Spring rain patter, as counterpoint.

[phyllo]

timely? sand does not fall through an hourglass in zero gravity...
-Imp

Actually, given enough time, I would expect an hourglass i space (in zero gravity) to have about half the sand in the upper half and half in the lower.

Puzzles you. Consider the experiment done here on earth, just take away gravity. An hour glass filled with a liquid and very small balls of something else that would not dissolve in the liquid and are of the same "specific gravity" (density) as the liquid. We start out at T1 with all the balls in the top half. Do you expect them all to stay there? As they randomly move about, there is a probability of a ball drifting through the connecting tube (we are assuming ball size << tube diameter). Also a probability of a ball drifting up through the tube, but initially that would be zero (no balls down there at the start. As long as the probability of balls drifting down is greater than the probability of balls drifting up, more balls will drift down than up. When the number of balls in both halves is the same, the probabilities would be equal.

Sand does not "randomly move about".