"Chen Yixiong, Eric" wrote:
> No, we should not allow permanent inspectors. This will allow
> outsiders to gain immense knowledge of our facilities and technology.
> If we use an open information topology like the Libertarian (LB) or
> Sociologisticial (SL) systems, then we would commit information
> suicide because others can steal our technology easily.
Well...try this spin:
If our research truly would be all that more effective and efficient
for being done in our own colony, then maybe the information would be
useless to them for countering us? Say, nearing the ridiculous
extreme:
We based our defenses on some newly discovered technology. Their spies
easily and quickly learn of our advance and transmit it to their
superiors - or perhaps they merely listen in when we deliberately
broadcast it for anyone interested. They analyse the tech in a day,
figure out a perfect countermeasure, and send up a party to take us
over a day after that...only to discover our nanoreplicators have
already upgraded the by now seriously obsolete technology. All their
attack brings is some strange looks ("You thought we were using *that*?
That was two days ago! Get with the times, dudes!").
The closer we get to the Singularity, the more viable such a defense
becomes.
> We should err on the side of having too much territory than too
> little. Defining territorital space does not mean we will always
> defend it, but it will definitely warn us of hostile attacks.
But at the same time, we should be willing to assign the same space to
any other habitat...which puts a limit on how much territory we may
safely claim. If we orbit opposite Earth, and claim a 1 AU radius
sphere...what if someone puts a colony 1/6th of an orbit ahead of us?
It's far enough away to be nonthreatening, yet clearly within our
space, to say nothing of us being in their space.
> > If they try to board...well, as advanced as even the US military is, we
> > could gain an advantage with some research into weapons and gear for
> > dedicated space infantry (i.e., troops trained to fight only in a space
> > station, not in jungles or cities or any environment inside a natural
> > gravity well).
>
> I don't think they will want to board, because they can easily
> destroy us with a volley of atomic bombs and dummies.
Capturing the mad scientists so one can kill them, yet still study
their notes and exploit their research for the good of humanity, might
well be their goal. Remember, once we create technology significantly
in advance of what anyone on Earth has, our colony itself could
potentially become a valuable prize.
> > > I love the nation of my birth and hope its leaders will steer away
> > > from the course they seem to be taking in regards to biotech. I
> > > wonder what else they may lose nerve about down the road! :( When I
> > > go into space one day, I want to do so as a proud American citizen.
>
> In my opinion, I think loyalty has little relevance. The colony ought
> not to expect loyalty to itself per se, but in its way of life. That
> means, colonists don't defend their colony's flag (if it even has
> one), but their own ability to enjoy the life that the colony
> provides for them.
Hopefully, this would make little difference. In practice, though,
instilling that form of loyalty might well guard against corruption -
say, if some hostile power somehow managed to get a "let's blow up the
colony and all head back to Earth to be sheep again" type elected to
whatever government we have.
> > > This post brings back very fond memories of my time at the Extro! :)
> > > I was privy to some great conversations there.
>
> I wonder about what event did you refer to. Sorry, pardon my
> ignorance of the Extropian history.
Extro-5, held about a month ago.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:05 MDT