From: eleusyan@speedchoice.com
Date: Mon Apr 05 1999 - 19:20:27 MDT
On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 19:49:30 +0200, you wrote about the possibility of
the Roman Catholic Churh acting against the vessel:
>Some irrelevant verbal abuse only...
Considering their vast resources, powerful members and history, I
cannot put it past a Roman Catholic leader of a country acting in the
name of the Mother Church (which is, granted, not the same as the
actual princes of the Church acting on their own official capacity) .
And the Holy Office still exists, although I have no evidence nor even
indications that any sort of inquisition is on its way. Nevertheless,
I aim to be cautious: that's one wealthy institution you may not want
to go medieval on your ship.
Incidentally, the Holy See could hardly be considered the only
possible source of religious reprisals. Faith can be a powerful
inductor to initiate violence against perceived sins, all in the name
of the divinity of choice. Current terrorist attacks against abortion
clinics in the US remind us of just how carried away some people might
get.
In my earlier postings, I sidestepped the issue of setting up a
religion not just because I can't bring myself to protect a rational
venture with an irrational veneer, but also because I realized that
not even religions can get away legally with eliminating human life,
which is how many US courts seem to take the issue of euthanasia. Some
justices might even deem these acts "ritual sacrifices," which are
still clearly forbidden when it comes to human lives.
But isn't the point of these euthanasias to then place the subject
under cryogenic storage? That being the case, we need a scientific
approach in court successfully explaining how the cessation of
animation by euthanasia and subsequent physiological stasis under
cryogenic storage differs from death and subsequent physiological
decomposition (which is the case even with mummified cadavers).
In countries were the rule of law is still appreciated and mostly
followed, battles would need to be won in court if one is to avoid the
bribery approach. And you do need to convince those countries even if
your vessel is in "international" waters. I don't think the U.N.
acknowledges immunity from its reach anywhere on this planet; and U.N.
members certainly know how to go ballistic when the issue of "crimes
against humanity" favors their political agendas (witness the Spanish
"Superfudge" and Madrid's newfound role in the scheme of things). I
still think you need hefty protection not only from felonious and
terrorists attacks, but from the more threatening military of
virtually any country in the world.
This ship won't be just a peaceful schooner merrily sailing o'er the
high sea waves: to some reactionary ideologues in just about every
nation of this world, it will be an outright threat to their way of
thinking. It certainly runs counter to Judeo-Islam-Christian precepts
of life, death as a natural result and fatalistic acceptance of the
ultimate fate as imposed from Beyond.
Oh, and let's not forget that at some point you will need to go to
port somewhere in the world or rely upon transportation to deal with
dry land concerns.
I also wonder whether tethering yourself to some "realty" and
obtaining acknowledgment as a sovereign nation might help somewhat. It
wouldn't physically prevent other nations from attacking you; but at
least some national leaders are effectively restrained by legal
constructs.
Then again, aren't NATO nations attacking Yugoslav grounds even as we
speak "on principle"? never underestimate the power of statist
politicians to work themselves into a frenzy!
So far, this venture seems to require (a) capital, (b) technological
means, (c) human resources, (d) sovereignty, (e) legal standing in
assorted national and international forums, (f) military-level defense
systems... It's definitely starting to look like a nation-making
endeavor.
A. Eleusyan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:29 MST