4 ms·

I'm sorry but this is just silly. Just because something happened in a novel published more than 50 years ago does not at all make it likely to happen in real l

by neaden 9y ago

I'm sorry but this is just silly. Just because something happened in a novel published more than 50 years ago does not at all make it likely to happen in real life. The Moon is much less habitable than we thought it would be in the 60s, meaning any moon colony will be very dependent on the Earth for the foreseeable future and the rock launcher wouldn't be bulidable with the kind of infrastructure in the novel.

valuearb 9y ago
The point is it's really hard to impose laws and forms of government on peoples living days or months away from you. Sooner or later they'll want to make their own.
- neaden 9y ago
  Says who? Plenty of empires had people living that far without rebellions breaking out. Yeah the US rebelled against Britain but Canada, Australia, and a bunch of other places didn't. Hell, most of England was more than a couple days away from London for most of English history without breaking away. Let alone a larger country like China.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    How much of the British Empire still reports to Britain?
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Same lesson as KSRobinson's Mars series. Same lesson as the United States secession and rebellion against Great Britain. You make the government local, or the local government that eventually forms will rebel. Then it will beat you, because it can react to the local situation more quickly. You might be able to control the Moon from Earth, but Mars will definitely be self-governing. It's all about the latency.
  - neaden 9y ago
    Why didn't Canada rebel? Australia? Falkland Islands? Malta? India? Nigeria? Belize? Tunisia? Samoa? Puerto Rico? The Philippines? Guam? Most of the Caribbean? In fact, off the top of my head the only times that you saw a colony rebel in a circumstance like that was the U.S and Haiti. Now you can point pout that most of the countries I mentioned are independent or quasi-independent today but most of them got that status after WW2 when it was actually much much easier to travel. And all of those countries also had the benefit of being able to have a breathable atmosphere, a magnetic field, and land which you can grow crops on none of which Mars or the Moon have which would make them much more dependent on their home nation.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      I'd guess that was because there are more factors in play than just distance. But I get the sense that you're trying to invert a logical implication somewhere. The comparison you should be making is the rebellion of a distant colony versus a more local rebellion. I.e. why did the American Revolution succeed, but the Whiskey Rebellion fail?
      - neaden 9y ago
        You said "You make the government local, or the local government that eventually forms will rebel. Then it will beat you, because it can react to the local situation more quickly. You might be able to control the Moon from Earth, but Mars will definitely be self-governing. It's all about the latency." Which sounds like you think distant colonies successfully rebelling is a rule of history that means Mars will inevitably be self-governing. I pointed out that in fact, most colonies did not rebel and only became self-governing in the 1900s it no longer took months or weeks to travel to them. The Whisky rebellion was essentially an armed tax protest, of the kind that happened fairly often in American history and before independence. Its goal was never to topple the US government or create a separate nation.

by neaden 9y ago

valuearb 9y ago

The point is it's really hard to impose laws and forms of government on peoples living days or months away from you. Sooner or later they'll want to make their own.

neaden 9y ago
Says who? Plenty of empires had people living that far without rebellions breaking out. Yeah the US rebelled against Britain but Canada, Australia, and a bunch of other places didn't. Hell, most of England was more than a couple days away from London for most of English history without breaking away. Let alone a larger country like China.
- valuearb 9y ago
  How much of the British Empire still reports to Britain?
logfromblammo 9y ago
Same lesson as KSRobinson's Mars series. Same lesson as the United States secession and rebellion against Great Britain. You make the government local, or the local government that eventually forms will rebel. Then it will beat you, because it can react to the local situation more quickly. You might be able to control the Moon from Earth, but Mars will definitely be self-governing. It's all about the latency.
- neaden 9y ago
  Why didn't Canada rebel? Australia? Falkland Islands? Malta? India? Nigeria? Belize? Tunisia? Samoa? Puerto Rico? The Philippines? Guam? Most of the Caribbean? In fact, off the top of my head the only times that you saw a colony rebel in a circumstance like that was the U.S and Haiti. Now you can point pout that most of the countries I mentioned are independent or quasi-independent today but most of them got that status after WW2 when it was actually much much easier to travel. And all of those countries also had the benefit of being able to have a breathable atmosphere, a magnetic field, and land which you can grow crops on none of which Mars or the Moon have which would make them much more dependent on their home nation.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    I'd guess that was because there are more factors in play than just distance. But I get the sense that you're trying to invert a logical implication somewhere. The comparison you should be making is the rebellion of a distant colony versus a more local rebellion. I.e. why did the American Revolution succeed, but the Whiskey Rebellion fail?
    - neaden 9y ago
      You said "You make the government local, or the local government that eventually forms will rebel. Then it will beat you, because it can react to the local situation more quickly. You might be able to control the Moon from Earth, but Mars will definitely be self-governing. It's all about the latency." Which sounds like you think distant colonies successfully rebelling is a rule of history that means Mars will inevitably be self-governing. I pointed out that in fact, most colonies did not rebel and only became self-governing in the 1900s it no longer took months or weeks to travel to them. The Whisky rebellion was essentially an armed tax protest, of the kind that happened fairly often in American history and before independence. Its goal was never to topple the US government or create a separate nation.