Difference between revisions of "Talk:People on the Moon"

From Lunarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Licence ambiguity)
Line 47: Line 47:
  
 
----
 
----
 +
 +
==Transitions==
 +
A brief summary of issues with this section.
 +
*Requiring that older male miners have vasectomies?
 +
::No one would agree to such a proposal.  It is a violation of individual rights.  People move to a frontier to find more freedom, not to have it taken away. I can understand vasectomies in order to avoid mutations, but this is a dangerous precedent.  Once these are set society tends to keep going in a very bad way.  The result may very well be a new underclass of the elderly or continued precedents leading to the rise of ingrained fascist ideology and/or stripping settlers of their individual rights.  This proposal could stifle the expansion of lunar settlement and the importation of needed laborers.
 +
*Requiring that all miners be older men and women past the prime of fertility?
 +
::Older people shipped off to the mines?  Sure they could be in roving miners, but where would they go on the moon?  It would be a prison without walls.  Denying young people available jobs?  Riots and protests are never a happy experience.  Look at what happened in France.
 +
*Limiting Transitions - in General
 +
::The idea that people would lose their freedom of choice when it comes to how they live their lives and pursue their careers, or have their choices limited in such a way has many issues, some of which I will discuss.  I want to live in a free market where my qualifications speak for themselves and my career path is not limited by a set of arbitrary rules and protocols.  These rules would severely limit the creation of small businesses and stifle opportunities for individual entrepreneurship that do not lie in a person's pre-set career path.  They would also limit a person's opportunities to change career in order to support himself, his family, or his way of life in the presence of market/price fluctuations for the goods and/or services that he currently provides, or in the cases of layoffs at his current employer or an entire company going under.  Such an event will saturate the labor market for many specialties depending on the company.  The only ways to avoid the problem of labor market saturation is to rely on state run enterprises creating more government jobs in that specialty (which would saturate the market for the goods it provides and lead to more business failures), funding public works projects (this would only help some specialties), or begin an individual relief program (ie: welfare, goods vouchers used in communist countries).  Such a course would open up an even larger can of worms than the one created by these rules in the first place (ie: taxation destroying an already slim profit margin and resulting in loss of private enterprise).
 +
 +
Thoughts/Feedback?
 +
 +
-- [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 23:36, 27 March 2007 (PDT)

Revision as of 23:36, 27 March 2007

This page was originally written to develop characters for stories about lunar settlement. I have written about 5 of these stories to date. They are now at:

Back to the Moon wiki Story Index

I would be interested in moving them to Lunarpedia as part of a major addition to actively and aggressively build a vision of success in the American public for the return to the moon.

Jriley 04:41, 3 March 2007 (PST)

Toursists

Why are these transitions prohibited?

  • Tourist to miner (not properly trained)

Why not train the tourist? The tourist will need quite a lot of training before they will be allowed to fly to the Moon, just like tourists to space today. The additional training to become a miner would seem simple enough.

In the interim, the tourist would have more than enough training to support himself/herself working in a retail outlet. This paragraph only Mdelaney

  • Tourist to settler (wait your turn like everybody else, seen as trying to buy your way into the program)

What is wrong with buying your way into the program? That is basically what the toursts are already doing. They would be just staying permanently instead of returning to Earth. If they have the money to pay for it, why not establish retirement community on the Moon for example, such communities exist all over the Earth. People live and work in one country, then retire in a different country. What is wrong with the Moon as a retirement destination?Charles F. Radley 06:42, 3 March 2007 (PST)


First the various groups will probably hate each other's guts. A tourist who bought his or her way to the Moon and then descided they wanted to stay would certainly be dispised by all the people who spend years of worry and training just to get there.

It will take a lot of community resources to support each person in the settlement. Just buying a week as a tourist does not mean you are paying for anything like the cost of perminate lodging. Retiring to the Moon is completely seperate consideration

There would be no restriction a tourist returing to the Earth and appling like everybody else.

--Jriley 03:47, 10 March 2007 (PST)

Licence ambiguity

There is no CC_People namespace. By moving it there you actually moved it into the public domain main namespace. As I'm doubting this was your intent I moved it here until the terms under which it is to be made available are clarified.

What could be done to clarify the namespace formatting, especially for the next time when the next person may accidentally move something into public domain and not have the situation caught in time to prevent someone using it as a public domain resource? -- Strangelv 06:49, 3 March 2007 (PST)

Sorry, this was a only low-on-the-learning-curve editing mistake.

--Jriley 03:52, 10 March 2007 (PST)


I would volenteer to be a lunar miner in a New York minute.

--Jriley 03:51, 10 March 2007 (PST)


Transitions

A brief summary of issues with this section.

  • Requiring that older male miners have vasectomies?
No one would agree to such a proposal. It is a violation of individual rights. People move to a frontier to find more freedom, not to have it taken away. I can understand vasectomies in order to avoid mutations, but this is a dangerous precedent. Once these are set society tends to keep going in a very bad way. The result may very well be a new underclass of the elderly or continued precedents leading to the rise of ingrained fascist ideology and/or stripping settlers of their individual rights. This proposal could stifle the expansion of lunar settlement and the importation of needed laborers.
  • Requiring that all miners be older men and women past the prime of fertility?
Older people shipped off to the mines? Sure they could be in roving miners, but where would they go on the moon? It would be a prison without walls. Denying young people available jobs? Riots and protests are never a happy experience. Look at what happened in France.
  • Limiting Transitions - in General
The idea that people would lose their freedom of choice when it comes to how they live their lives and pursue their careers, or have their choices limited in such a way has many issues, some of which I will discuss. I want to live in a free market where my qualifications speak for themselves and my career path is not limited by a set of arbitrary rules and protocols. These rules would severely limit the creation of small businesses and stifle opportunities for individual entrepreneurship that do not lie in a person's pre-set career path. They would also limit a person's opportunities to change career in order to support himself, his family, or his way of life in the presence of market/price fluctuations for the goods and/or services that he currently provides, or in the cases of layoffs at his current employer or an entire company going under. Such an event will saturate the labor market for many specialties depending on the company. The only ways to avoid the problem of labor market saturation is to rely on state run enterprises creating more government jobs in that specialty (which would saturate the market for the goods it provides and lead to more business failures), funding public works projects (this would only help some specialties), or begin an individual relief program (ie: welfare, goods vouchers used in communist countries). Such a course would open up an even larger can of worms than the one created by these rules in the first place (ie: taxation destroying an already slim profit margin and resulting in loss of private enterprise).

Thoughts/Feedback?

-- Jarogers2001 23:36, 27 March 2007 (PDT)