Talk:Politics of Science Fiction

Thank you for your edit. I would like you to consider a couple ideas:

First, although politics is usually discussed as a line with a left and a right, it is really a circle. If you go far enough left, you reach the right. If you go far enough right, you reach the left. A great many people make this trip through their lives.

The backside bridge is the space in which the libertarians live. It is a wonderful space of great power. Both sides claim them and both sides treat them as traders. They close a gap that turns out not even to exist.

Second, the American people, who we wish to pay for our lunar settlement one way or another, form a bell curve centered on the political line. Some times the center is a little to the left and sometimes it is a little to the right, but it does not move either way more than a percentage point or two.

What it does not do is split into two peaks. Amazing it did not even split at the peak of the great depression. It certainly did not split over the war in Southeast Asia. I as in the streets for that one.

You can argue that the bell may be a bit wide at times, or that the tails are fat, but the peak of the bell never splits.

Now the talk show commentators are split, the politicians are split, and the radio jocks are split. Who cares? What counts are the American people, and they are one of the most amazingly consistent groups in human history. This is amazing and you forget it at your own peril.

--Jriley 15:29, 5 March 2007 (PST)

---

You do not edit other people's work, fiction or non-fiction, to change the perceived political slant.

The above line, rather than discouraging editing will likely encourage it. Especially as the whole point of a wiki is the ability for anyone to edit the page. Furthermore it is worded in a manner that makes it seem like Lunarpedia policy, which it is most certainly not.

Any strong political bias runs counter to the desires of quite a lot of people, I can assure you that many of us want the development of the moon to be as apolitical as possible. If it is not, then the results will be disastrous at some stage in the future.

Just as an example, some possible outcomes of politicizing Lunar development:

1. US .gov development. That might just not happen at all as space is a political football. If it does happen, then a sizable number of nations around the world may feel threatened.

2. Chinese communist development. The US and much of the western world may feel threatened.

3. Russian neo-communist development. The US and much of the western world may feel threatened.

4. European social-democrat development. The communists and the US will feel like they've been stabbed in the back.

5. Corporate development, all the communists will be upset.

6. Any of the above, the muslims are likely to be very upset.

7. In all cases, ecologists & greens will be upset.

8. In at least three of the above cases, the moon would likely be closed to private enterprise forever as developments would be in the hands of military types.

9. Some of the above could lead to war in the future. Possibly the same three referred to in #8.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

-- Mdelaney 13:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)