For a long time now I've believed that a desire to hold a particular public office should automatically disqualify a person from running for said office. I don't know what it is, but I have never ever, ever never met, seen from afar, or even heard rumor of a politician who faithfully did the very best that they could for the people who they are theoretically in office to serve. Most politicians are lawyers and in my experience lawyers don't believe in an objective "right" and "wrong". They seem to think that what is right or wrong depends on one's point-of-view. I think this viewpoint is either symptomatic of or a cause of their belief that truth or falsehood is all subjective as well. Sadly our politicians behaving this way seems to have poisoned the minds of many (if not most) average people into believing the same.
By way of example - and to set up those who I believe to be counter to the politician's way of thinking, scientists - let's talk about global warming, shall we. Scientific data is absolutely undeniable in showing that our life support system in the universe (this planet) is getting hotter very quickly. The NWS keeps track of global temperature data, NASA has satellites in orbit whose job is to measure the size of the polar ice caps (smaller for at least three years in a row now) and the data is open for anyone to see. NASA posts this stuff on twitter, for Pete's sake. Scientific debate on the issue is about whether it is man-made or a natural cycle (evidence suggests man-made, but it's still debatable) and about whether the system can regulate itself quickly enough to remain habitable by humans. Politicians and those who have been poisoned by them, on the other hand, still argue that global warming is not happening at all. Really!? Did I mention that the data is open for all to see?
Another example of this difference between the way politicians think and the way scientists think is reaction to the political events revolving around the Crimean peninsula. To be perfectly honest I don't know the story behind the whole Russia, Ukraine, Crimea tug-of-war. I know what American news services have said, but I'm sharp enough to realize that their information is biased in favor of American political agendas. I don't know anyone from that part of the world who can tell me the real history as lived there, so I am massively uninformed on the topic. I also know that it has nothing to do with international cooperation in space exploration, although American politicians are trying to make the two things overlap: because of America's governmental officials' stance on the Crimea issue NASA has been ordered to stop cooperation with Russia.
Oh, wait ... except in relation to the ISS. NASA is allowed to cooperate there. Because how would Americans get onto or off of the ISS without Russia? So that's okay, just not anywhere else.
Honestly guys, if Russia is going to be painted as the big bad bully here then they're bad all the way around. You can't have them be the bad guy but still use them for transport to the ISS. That's just ridiculous.
Reaction to this American foreign policy directive from astronauts and scientists pretty much worldwide has been uniformly incredulous and I believe that this reaction is a good indication of the sort of "foreign policy" that humanity should take to Mars with us. Science and technology already has many answers to global problems and the beginnings of many more answers. If governments worldwide cooperated like scientists worldwide do mankind would be much closer to solving issues like global warming, renewable energy, pollution, yada yada yada.
In my opinion, Mars should be kept politician free. Let's populate our next planet with only people who have useful contributions to make to society and see what happens. This is an opportunity to begin human society all over from scratch, let's make the most of it.
How do you think we should keep Mars politician free?
ReplyDeleteLike Antarctica or something better/more?
Good question. I'm not certain that I know the answer, but I'll muse aloud for a bit.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the trouble comes from the power, and sometimes money, which politicians acquire. Those two things seem to be what draws people into politics. They generally have pretty words to throw out about serving their fellow man, but their words don't ring true. So how to keep the power and money out of the equation?
Let's get back to some basics here. The actual jobs of a politician are these: To represent the interests of the people they are hired by and to lead those people into making good decisions for the society. The first job, representation, breaks down to two things: codifying the rules of our society and negotiating with other societies. On Mars we will be a small enough group that we can do our codifying directly without a need for professional lawmakers for a very long time unless there is a major breakthrough in travel between the planets so that aspect we don't have to worry about immediately. Negotiation also won't be a worry for a while because of the fact that we will be dependent on Earth for a while. Money as such won't be a problem on Mars for some time either. What we have to think about, then, is the far future.
This is really very tricky. There's a fine balance to try to keep to. For example, one of the biggest weaknesses of the American system is that the President is in office for only eight years or less. This leads to confusing foreign policy shifts which would not happen if the Pres stayed in office longer. On the other hand, one of the greatest strengths of the American system is that the President can only be in office for eight years or less because that's too much power to hold for too long.
I've heard some people (extreme idealists, they're so cute) who think that a society with a preponderance of scientists will naturally be better because they'll come to logical rational conclusions. I hate to point out that conclusions are heavily based on beginning assumptions – this is why there is so much conflict between the two parties in America, not because one side is more or less rational, but because each side begins with different assumptions.
How, then would I design Martian government? Okay, here we go …
1) With modern communication methods there is no need for a body of representatives to codify law. All citizens can vote electronically on any lawmaking.
A) Beginning one sidereal year after first landing and continuing in perpetuity once per sidereal year there will be held a Voting Day on which any proposed rules for Martian society will be voted on by the entire population.
B) Citizens will be able to vote from any public or private electronic device. Each citizen will have one non-transferable vote per rule which can be cast only on Voting Day.
2) Rules can be proposed by any Martian citizen.
A) A Rules Committee will be established which will have the duty of collecting proposed rules and preparing for the public vote.
B) The Rules Committee will also have the responsibility of preparing for the drawings for Negotiator in Chief and Rules Committee.
C) Positions in the Rules Committee will be filled every Voting Day by random drawing in which all eligible citizens who have not held public office within the past five sidereal years will be entered.
3) There will be a Chief Negotiator who will represent the citizens of Mars when dealing with Earth.
A) Negotiator in Chief will be an unpaid position whose duties will have to be performed in addition to the regular duties of the office holder.
B) The position of Negotiator in Chief will be filled every Voting Day by a random drawing in which all eligible citizens who have not held public office within the past five sidereal years will be entered.
4) Citizens will be declared ineligible to vote if found to be guilty of a serious crime against the community such as Rape or Murder.
Okay, it's not complete, but it's a start.