Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Humanity’s Destiny? Howard Bloom: ‘Garden The Solar System, Green the Galaxy’

On May 22 in Los Angeles the visionary writer made the case for colonizing outer space and terraforming the Moon and Mars. I attended and represented the "right-wing" Bible-thumpers.

by
Dave Swindle

Bio

June 17, 2013 - 4:30 pm
Page 1 of 10  Next ->   View as Single Page

“This is David. He’s the most right-wing person I know.”

–  Howard Bloom introducing me to others before his talk, immediately blowing my cover. #DangIt #FacePalm

I didn’t know what to expect a few weeks ago when my friend Howard Bloom — author of science books The Lucifer Principle, Genius of the Beast, Global Brain, The God Problem, and the new e-book The Mohammed Code — invited me to hear him present his new proposal for space colonization to a small group. Howard has been one of my major intellectual influences for years. All of his books are included in my counterculture conservative reading list and I’ve focused on studying his most recent two on Saturdays for the “Radical Reading Regimen” I’ve started developing to try to organize my research. I already knew what to expect from Howard, both in content and delivery. He had sent me the visual outline he was to present many months ago. And I knew his infectious, enthusiastic delivery style. The big mystery that perplexed me: who exactly might I encounter at this gathering? (Hopefully not anyone in the counterculture community I had already offended — and I could think of a few in Howard’s circle…)

I knew the spectrum of Bloom enthusiasts. Over the past few decades since retiring from a wildly successful career in the music PR business to transition to full-time science author and public intellectual, Bloom had attracted a number of different followings as varying demographics connected with the VERY WIDE range of postions he articulated. Initially Howard attracted varieties of countercultural, secularist, and futurist audiences from his first two books. Many people first connected with Howard’s work as I did a decade ago when Richard Metzger’s Disinformation Company was at its peak and showcased him in books and a legendary TV show. He still has that legion of fans and acquaintances — who make themselves known on his Facebook page. I’m the rare one among this fan base who after graduating from college in 2006 as a secular progressive drifted toward political conservatism by 2009 and *gasp* the dreaded social conservatism and Bible-based religion by 2011. By this time Howard had released a third book, The Genius of the Beast, that I connected with, as it provided a new, innovative defense of my newfound radical capitalist creed.

As I got to know Howard personally after reviewing Beast, I found other views which synched with my unapologetic Tea Party conservatism. Howard was raised by secular Zionists and had spent decades studying Islam, arriving at an analysis in The Mohammed Code comparable to Robert Spencer’s in indicting the faith of Mohammed as an inherently violent, totalitarian, desert death cult.

But I was going to keep my mouth shut about all my nonsense. Three years now living out in Los Angeles as a full-time, professional conservative new media editor I’ve learned very well how to downplay my profession or to spin it in ways that sound harmless so as not to draw attention to myself at social gatherings. When I’m at a dinner party with my wife’s art colleagues and grad school friends, it doesn’t do me (or her) any favors to get detailed about how I spend my days editing ex-Marxists, former Soviet spymasters, and both dissident Muslim mystics and polemical ex-Muslim anti-jihad activists. And I’ve been calling the president an evil, antisemitic criminal who needs to be impeached and go to jail since before the election…

But there Howard went and did it as we stood talking with a retired music executive, a documentary filmmaker, and a music video director: “Most right-wing person I know!” I think Howard “outed” me for two reasons, first to signal that I could be myself and second to demonstrate the point that he then made explicitly to the others there, that his ideas had a broad appeal and could be appreciated by people across the political and religious spectrums.

Or he was probably just not thinking, just being off-the-top-of-his-head-himself, following his first rule of science: the Truth at any price, even the price of your life.

YouTube Preview Image

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (51)
All Comments   (51)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"Humans will be able to create their own self-sustaining ecosystems within giant, orbiting space stations."

He's been playing too much Mass Effect. I like it.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here's one reason why we would benefit enormously if we were to have some kind of place off the Earth where people could live: Islam.

It seems to me that we are inevitably going to see a vital and prolonged conflict between Islam and the rest of the world if we all stay on this Earth together. They will kill us in large numbers or we will kill them in large numbers or both. I don't see any other realistic way to resolve the conflict.

If we had another place for people to go, we and the Muslims could go our separate ways. It doesn't even particularly matter if we leave or they do; as long as we are separate (and lack the ability to make war on one another), we should find it a great relief not to have to deal with one another any more.

Ideally, we'd be on separate planets a long distance apart so that we had little reason to interact but even being in separate parts of this solar system would probably be a positive start.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Until you can create something like a stargate technology, you can't move enough people to make a difference. Even Star Trek's transporters couldn't do it.

If you can create that stargate, now what? Do you march all the Muslims off the planet at gunpoint? Put them on trains to Arcturus IV? Then dismantle the stargate?

And what's to stop them from building their own stargate and coming back and renewing the war?


And what about the ideas they leave behind? Is there nobody here that might read those old books and revive those ideas?


Until you accept that it is ALL about the ideology, and NOT about the people who follow it, you cannot solve the problem you correctly described.


43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Greening Luna is a very bad idea. It's far more useful as a high-vacuum industrial/scientific site. Mars, on the other hand....
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Agreed. Besides, I don't think that terraforming something as small as the Moon would last. Besides, are we going to also "alter" the Moons weak gravity? Anyway, thousands of people could inhabit the Moon comfortably (once we get the habitability technologies working well enough on a large scale) with no need for changing the entire environment. That would be a monumental waste that probably can't even be done. And you cite very good reasons why the Moon should be kept largely in its existing state, other than resource exploitation.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
My response to all this speculation about the future? If you think you can ever bring space travel and transport to the masses that way, go right ahead and try, but I'm not holding my breath. I strongly doubt it's ever going to be very inexpensive to get around our own solar system, let alone out to the stars.

Sci-fi TV shows and movies make space travel and colonization look so easy. When people actually get out into space, though, I bet they find all the stuff in those shows resembles the real thing to about the same degree that Hollywood computers' abilities resemble actual computers' abilities.

Already, I'm seeing some reasons to be skeptical that anyone could actually pull off some of these projects. Take for instance that bit about easily handling "thousands of tons of material" because the lack of gravity makes everything in space weightless. Well, yeah, no gravity means no weight, but did it ever occur to any of the geniuses who proposed this that huge objects in space still have mass and inertia? Moving huge loads around in space might actually strain human muscles more than it does down here because you still have to exert plenty of strength pushing against a massive object to get it moving, and then you have to exert an equal amount of force against it in the other direction when you've got it where you want it to go and need to stop it. Null-G construction is likely to require just as much manpower and machinery as any kind of construction we already do here on the ground.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Except that this isn't Sci-Fi. It's doable with current technologies. (And yes, being engineers, we're well aware of the difference between mass and weight). Checkout SpaceX's website, as well as Bigelow Aerospace for some ideas of where we're headed.

If we really want unlimited power, solar power satellites are the only way to go.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Massive solar power satellites, are "so yesterday" in one aspect. I was involved with the early space development lobbying coming out of the O'Neill "High Frontier" concept, and have to scratch my head at how much has been unlearned since then. All these people reviving ideas that have been studied extensively in the past and found wanting.

To be fair, tech advances since those days make large solar power satellites more feasible, but not to the point tha they are a panacea for energy resources. We're not there yet. Space solar power test articles? Absolutely. But large, operational solar farms in the near future? No way.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
"It's doable with current technologies"

No it's not. Therein lies the conceit about "mass" space settlement. Current technologies, ALL of them, are woefully inadequate for doable, sustainable space development and settlement. Tdoay's tech is adequate for initial efforts, and small-scale attempts at establishing bases off-planet, but that is all. Humans will expand out into the Solar System in time, and modest efforts should be made sooner rather than later. I don't mean to say that we have to wait for more advanced technologies to even start our efforts, but I am saying that the real breakout won't happen until we get beyond chemical propulsion and our still-primitive space habitation capabilities.

I also don't think that the Solar System beyond Earth will ever be inhabited by millions -- or at least, not for centuries. I think that, in the 21st century, there will be, at most, tens of thousands of people living off Earth. There is no need for mega projects to transport masses of people to "new worlds" any time in this century.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Do you plan on living for the next 50 years? It can be difficult trying to imagine how culture and politics will evolve as technology continues to get cheaper and more powerful.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Read "Rainbows End" by Vernor Vinge. He has some pretty good ideas. (Read it and then note that every technology he describes is currently in development.)
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'll check it out. Thanks for the book recommendation. Keep 'em coming. :)
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
I do not troll, and my comment was not anonymous. If you noticed, I quoted William Blake. I did not pretend to be your friend. I do not need to read James Wasserman to know that stuff about Masonic Washington is crap. I've lived in DC and its environs for almost 68 years, and while George may have been a Mason, the whole Masonic conspiracy, influence thing is crap.

Life is far too short to waste trolling the bargain basement of pseudo-academia for stuff like Howard Bloom. When there's Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, a multitude of Huxley's, Browning, Shaw, Newton, and a thousand worthier authors to read, why would I waste my time on Howard Bloom?

43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's trolling when I take the time to write an article presenting some of the ideas of one of my friends and the first comment on it is from somebody labeling it trash. That falls under the "harassing" descriptor of our second commenting guideline. And unless your real middle name is "Jurassic" then you're anonymous, whereas I put my name and face behind the positions I take. And with your quote you did indeed assert that your opposition from me allegedly came from a disposition of friendship. If it does not and you ARE indeed just trolling then by all means assert so and I'll disengage from trying to dialogue with you. I only engage friends in dialogue about philosophy, ideas, and religion.

James Wasserman and I agree with you that the Masonic conspiracy is crap. The book asserts that George Washignton and the founders had Masonic VALUES not that they were part of a shadowy conspiracy like the paleo-libertarian and paleo-conservative conspiracists assert.

"why would I waste my time on Howard Bloom?"
Because Howard is smarter and more interesting than each of the writers you name and over the course of his five published books he discusses the contributions of them all, integrating them together in brilliant new ways. If you are only willing to consider a single Bloom idea then try this one on for size from The God Problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wdJyafSBCb0

And if you like the work of my friend Robert Spencer whose articles I edit every week then I can guarantee that you'll love Howard's book The Mohammed Code.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
"It's trolling when I take the time to write an article presenting some of the ideas of one of my friends and the first comment on it is from somebody labeling it trash. That falls under the "harassing" descriptor of our second commenting guideline."

No, that's not trolling, and that's not harassing. Trolling is making provocative comments simply for the sake of generating controversy. Disagreement, even RUDE disagreement, is not trolling.

Nor is it harassment.

Words mean things.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Calling all the books of one of my friends trash is harassing and provocative simply for the sake of generating controversy. Especially one the one leveling the insult hasn't read what he's discouraging me and others from reading.

Rude disagreements do qualify as trolling. Rudeness = trolling.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Please consult a basic Internet dictionary, Dave.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think I've spent enough years reading internet comments to know trolling when I see it but if you want to offer an authoritative "internet dictionary" definition that you think I need to know about then by all means...
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm sorry, but I don't see it as trolling. You write an article, and you expect applause. I'm sorry life doesn't work like that. And you're definition of anonymous is nonsense. If you mean that you don't know me personally that's one thing. If you mean that I've concealed my identity, that's another. Personally I put the blame on your commenting system which wouldn't accept the quotes around Jurassic when I was forced to re-register. So if you put the quotes around Jurassic then it's Tom "Jurassic" Hart. Now you know exactly as much about me as before. As for pictures, I don't do pictures of myself.

You are mistaking a quote that contains the word "friendship," as a proclamation of friendship. The more important word their is "opposition."

Let me get this straight. You say that Howard Bloom, is smarter and more interesting than Aristotle, whom Dante referred to as "the master of them that know," Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and all of the others. These men form the basis of our civilization, and you say that Howard Bloom is smarter and more interesting than them.

By saying that Howard Bloom is more important than Aristotle, Locke, et al., and denying that they are in fact more important than him, you are in effect aligning yourself with the enemies of tradition and civilization. That is not a conservative position.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm ending this discussion now. You're arguing against a strawman and now openly declaring that I'm the enemy. (Here I am telling people to read the Bible every day and editing Robert Spencer's articles about Islam and Ron Radosh's articles about Marxism full time yet you claim I am aligned with the enemies of tradition of civilization by saying that a contemporary author is smarter and more interesting than authors who didn't have the last 2000 years worth of human civilization to build their ideas on top of. Yes, makes perfect sense in your mind somehow.)

I wrote that Bloom is "smarter" and "more interesting" than Aristotle and the other writers you named and then you respond to me as though I wrote "more important than." Earlier you were accusing me of promoting the Masonic conspiracy theory when the book actually refutes that very notion. When you're ready to admit that you've made some mistakes in your judgments of me then maybe we can try exchanging ideas again. And judging people you've never met and books you've never read is not a "conservative" position, whatever that word means to you.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
You obviously never learned to read. Opposition does not constitute being an enemy of someone.

You make a claim for which there is no evidence. Having more information does not constitute having more intelligence. In fact Bloom's books have received a number of well thought out negative reviews on Amazon.

As to judging people I've never met, and books I've never read I don't need to meet someone to know that based on available information that person is good, e.g., St. Francis of Assisi; bad, Molotov, Pol Pot; smart, Richard Feynman, Paul Dirac; or any number of qualities. This goes to phronesis, does the person present himself as having common sense. Bloom's five heresies, starting with the denial that "A is A" do not present the impression of someone with common sense. If A is not A then what is it? Is it B? Is it any not-A that's out there. Since I can form the impression that Bloom is not capable of common sense, what is the need for me to proceed further? That is a waste of my time and my money.

Do you go into a bookstore, and buy every book you see? Surely not. In that case you must be rejecting books as unworthy of purchase prior to reading them. So you perform the kind of judgement that you deride for performing.

I don't care about the Masons one way or the other. The Founders may have been Masons, but their Deism is more important than their Masonry.

Howard Bloom may be your friend. That's nice for the two of you, but it doesn't make his books good. He may have written five books, but that doesn't make his books good. Kierkegaard wrote over 20, so isn't he 4 or 5 times better and smarter than Howard Bloom? Nietzsche also wrote a few. The question is does what Bloom writes make sense. He starts off by denying that A is A. That doesn't bode well. Then he's got a bit about entropy. So what are his qualifications for writing about entropy? His public relations firm? His Wikipedia bio doesn't show much by the way of qualifications in science. No advanced degrees in math, physics, biology, or anything else. The same goes for information theory. Zero evident qualifications for writing about that. A lot of puffery, and a lot of self-promotion.

Bloom is a minor player in the history of ideas, and will be largely forgotten in 10-50 years time.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Since I can form the impression that Bloom is not capable of common sense, what is the need for me to proceed further?"

Because it's the wrong impression. The same way your accusation that I was promoting books about Masonic conspiracies was wrong and your impression that my article in any way constituted me aligning myself "with the enemies of tradition and civilization".

But you have yet to acknowledge that you have ever made an inaccurate first impression or ever changed your mind about anything.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm sorry, but you obviously want nothing but positive feedback. I won't give it, and you shouldn't want it because that way there is nothing but disaster ahead.

Bloom may be your friend, but he's not mine, and even if he were I would still say that what I've seen of his writings is crap. The fact that he's your friend does not mean that he does not write crap.

How do I make an inaccurate first impression? Surely, if I make a first impression, I make that impression on someone else, so do I present myself inaccurately to "the Other." Perhaps you mean that I have "formed" an inaccurate first impression. In that case you should say so. I would expect someone who has a degree in "creative writing," to be able to use words accurately. Why is it my ability to form impressions, assuming you did mean "form" and not "make," or my ability to change my mind important to you? What is important is whether or not Howard Bloom's books are worth reading. Based on what I've seen from your previous columns, and the reviews that I've seen on Amazon, I would say that among the millions of books out there that the answer is no.

I see no indication in his bio that he has any real expertise in anything except self-promotion.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Is this you:
http://ryansorba.blogspot.com/2011/05/david-swindle.html

If what he says is true, it would appear that you are in no position to post links to articles about ad hominem arguments.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
An argument I had with an anti-gay bigot years ago at my previous job has nothing to do with the fact that you are making ad hominem arguments against me and my friend. You googling me to try and find where others have made ad hominem attacks against me that you can recycle just proves the point that you're not out to dialogue with me about ideas like a friend, you're out to attack me personally like a troll.

"I am not arguing against his arguments, but against his expertise." = an ad hominem argument.

"I ask that you show me evidence of his expertise so that I can consider whether or not to engage with his arguments, and you refer me to a Wikipedia article on ad hominem argument. Where is the evidence for Bloom's expertise on philosophy, mathematics, or physics?"

Have you watched this video yet and judged for yourself? [You ignored when I asked you previously.] http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wdJyafSBCb0

It'll be less than 5 minutes of your time. If you watch the video and don't think the man behind it has anything of value to offer then by all means don't read him.

And then you might as well skip my articles too. There are plenty of other authors at PJ Media and I know that many people are going to misunderstand my counterculture conservatism and attack me, drawing on the smears from my old enemies while making up new ones (like accusing me of promoting Masonic conspiracies) as you have done.

I don't insist on only positive feedback or praise but if you're expecting me to respect your "opposition" then you're going to need to write it in a more respectful tone. Because right now it's obvious you don't respect me. And as a result we can't communicate. Communication can only happen between equals and because you regard yourself as my intellectual and philosophical superior you're unable to consider any idea that I might offer.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
You tell me I should watch the video to judge for myself. However, you give my no reason why I should choose to allocate a scarce resource, my time, to watch this video in preference to watching I Sicilian Vespri or Devotion. Your simple assertion that it is worth watching is not proof.

You call Ryan Sorba an anti-gay bigot. What, other than his disagreement with you, constitutes proof of that name? It seems to me that it is a slur. The fact that you called me a troll is another slur. You said that I was anonymous, and yet you have bullied Mr. Sorba, and apparently have engaged in a pattern of bad behavior regarding Robert Stacy McCain. You said that I'd posted anonymously when I am a registered user, and my name is contained within my current screen name. You posted your e-mail address in an attempt to get me to engage you privately. Since you have a pattern of bad behavior regarding people with whom you disagree I can only regard this as an attempt to obtain personal information for hostile purposes.

You have provided no proof of your assertions, among them that Harold Bloom is "smarter and more interesting" than Aristotle, Aquinas, et al. Nor have you provided any persuasive arguments for why I should allocate my time and money to reading Howard Bloom when a cursory examination of the contents of his books that you have provided shows that he is faddish, and not worth reading.

The fact that you apparently don't know the difference, or don't care enough to proof your writing, so that you write about "making an impression," when you should have written about "forming an impression," is not an impressive display of literary craftsmanship.

You say that you've read Aristotle, Aquinas, etc.,
then provide some evidence that you've read them.

You accuse me of Googling to find ad hominem attacks against you. I did Google, but to find evidence of scholarly activity by you. All that I find is accusations of misconduct by Robert Stacy McCain and Ryan Sorba. I also Googled to find evidence that Howard Bloom has published in peer reviewed articles. I find none.

So what are Bloom's qualifications for writing about physics. I know what mine are. None. But what are Bloom's?

Why is the fact that Bloom is your friend so important to you? Are there psychological issues that are lurking here?

Give me some reason for allocating time and money to this guy in preference to Tuchman, Pater, Wilde, Kant, Horace, Ovid, and Middleton.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
"You tell me I should watch the video to judge for myself. However, you give my no reason why I should choose to allocate a scarce resource, my time, to watch this video in preference to watching I Sicilian Vespri or Devotion. Your simple assertion that it is worth watching is not proof."

So you won't allocate 5 minutes to watch a video that will justify that he knows what he's talking about with physics but you will allocate much more time to write comments trashing us with ad hominem attacks in the comments.

Your behavior doesn't make sense. If your time is so valuable that you won't watch a 5 minute video I recommend then why are you wasting your time arguing with me and recycling paleo right-wingers' smears of me?
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
You have not been able or willing to generate a persuasive argument that I should pay attention to Bloom at all. This is apparently due to either unwillingness, or inability. Since I have seen no sign, based on Google, that you have indulged in serious scholarship, or that Bloom has indulged in serious scholarship, I see no reason why I should believe that either of you has authority in any subject.

If you think the two people I named are nutty pale conservatives, prove it. I have asked you repeatedly to prove statements, and you have never offered proof.

I'm done with you, and with any site that hires you.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
The question is why should I read Bloom's books. I am not arguing against his arguments, but against his expertise. I ask that you show me evidence of his expertise so that I can consider whether or not to engage with his arguments, and you refer me to a Wikipedia article on ad hominem argument. Where is the evidence for Bloom's expertise on philosophy, mathematics, or physics? All that I can see is a guy who claims expertise. Has he published in peer reviewed journals, if so cite them.

I have, according to US gov't actuarial tables 18 years of life left. Now my current reading schedule includes Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower and The Guns of August; Walter Pater on the Renaissance, Oscar Wilde's short stories, examples of French decadent literature, and a re-reading of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Further down the road I've got Horace, Ovid, and maybe Middleton. I've got Verdi's I Vespri Siciliani and La Forza Del Destino, and maybe the rest of Verdi lined up for listening/viewing, as well as Italian and German on Rosetta Stone to learn. So tell me which of these I should drop, and why, to spend my time and money on Howard Bloom? Justify his superiority.

All you've done so far is fail to respond to any comments in a meaningful way. Justify the time and expense involved in reading him. Prove his superiority to Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant. I don't see it in his bio on the same Wikipedia that you appear to revere.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is an underlying biological imperative to Life that "insists" on expanding its presence to new places and new niches. By moving life beyond Earth, humans become like bees spreading pollen. In evolutionary terms this is a positive thing.

But beyond that, how should it be done? Terraforming? Terrible idea, and here's why: it is a huge waste of resources to modify an entire planet for the mere tens of thousands of humans and accompanying life forms that would inhabit these surfaces; it's like running a whole herd of bison over a cliff just so you can eat a few of them. Very large, contained ecosystems are quite sufficient, and only use a fraction of the planetary surface. Building in free space, rather than on a planet, is another option (both are good). It would be centuries before uman presence in space will exceed the tens of thousands. Let those future "extraterrestrials" figure out whether they need to "terraform" ot not.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's not only a terrible idea, it's stupid.

There are good reasons that Mars is virtually dry and the moon has no atmosphere. These conditions are not amenable to wishful thinking and they aren't going to be changed by the efforts of mankind.

People who propose such things have no concept of the size of a planet, or the forces involved.


If we knew how to create limitless energy and we could transform elements, we still could not terraform planets.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
There are too many badly-run, debt-ridden, unambitious and incurious governments and misanthropic eco-mentalists intent on bringing about a manufactured dark age of rationing / austerity / subsistence with a reduced human population for human colonization in space to even be considered.

A relatively more realistic way of satisfying the need for humanity to live in a new frontier beyond government control is Ocean Colonization through means like seasteads, artificial islands and floating city-ships (akin to the Freedom Ship) by private entrepreneurs / etc (though some governments may participate in such endeavours down the line) with the issues/lessons of ocean colonization also being somewhat applicable for long-term human colonisation of space.

Such micronations (or large-ish artificial islands) with their novel forms of governance, being beyond the reach of corrupt indebted land-based nations and international bodies would have the means to restrict immigration of 3rd world peoples and keep out malevolent systems (like islam and all variations of socialism).

Whether Ocean Colonization is any more likely to happen than Space Colonization (or even reversing desertification and reclaiming the land) I honestly do not know, the point is that as America has now become part of the stagnant Old World there is a need for humanity to have a new frontier / new world to explore and settle, one where a New America can be founded.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
So you're of the belief that the big government fanatics are going to be so effective that 50, 75, 100 years from now we're all going to be on the earth and the moon will remain much as it is now?
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Unless things begin changing very soon, pretty much.

Obviously there are other factors to consider (such as WW3 or other devastating conflicts, global economic and societal collapse as well as the entrenched alliance between islam, environmentalism, socio-legal misandry and leftism/socialism of all flavours), yet having said that some competently run nations along with individual private endeavours just might be able to get the ball rolling a lot sooner than expected.

While America and the West/Westernized world might just be able to turn back the tide (albeit not without sacrificing much blood and tears at this point), apart from possibly Israel (via its miracles from above and resultant technologies paired with good self-reliant G-d-fearing leadership) and a few others which countries honestly have the potential mentality and ambition to succeed America in pursuing endeavours such as Space Colonization?

Especially, considering the fact that big government and other interests (eco-mentalists, oil sheiks, leftists, etc) are going out of their way to stifle innovation and prevent disruptive technologies they’re unable to control from being developed and hitting the market via legislation and other means.

That is why Ocean Colonization (along with desert reclamation or even Herman Sörgel’s Atlantropa) is relatively more realistic in comparison and that route allows not only a new frontier to wake humanity from its current stagnant state and capture its imagination, but also the freedom and appropriate environment required to develop the technologies needed for long-term Space Colonization.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Things are going to begin changing very soon. We will make them change. The culture can -- and WILL -- be taken back. The more one reads history the more one sees for hope. There have been times in our culture and others when there have been spontaneous radical changes turn around. http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/06/10/is-a-spiritual-revolution-the-missing-link-in-our-quest-for-a-political-revolution/

Don't lose hope.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
We won't even colonize the Sahara, which would require one millionth the effort and money. Even if that was neither here nor there, Third World babies and their mass movements into the West are sucking money and will dry. 1965 America had the mentality to do this thing, not today. We're spending too much money on people who can't even stop shooting each other in the head or build a frickin' bridge.

43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Colonies must go where there are reasons for them to exist. Cities are always built where they are for good reason, usually at transportation hubs (typically good ports). Quite frankly, there's nothing in the Sahara that requires people to be there.

Space, on the other hand, has many resources. Indeed, the only way to avoid depleting the Earth's resources (which, admittedly, we're not close to) is to move into space. Need metals? Mine the asteroids. Need power? solar-power satellites offer the entire output of the Sun to work with. Need hydrocarbons or water? Comets. And don't confuse colonizing space with colonizing planets - planets are nice, but fighting the gravity well when your resources are in orbit isn't worth it.

On Earth, we're always threatened - whether by our own population, war, or simply natural disasters such as Chixlub-scale "dinosaur killer" impacts or the next ice age. Only by expanding off-planet can we ever be really secure.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
"solar-power satellites offer the entire output of the Sun to work with."

Yes, on the surface of the moon or out in orbit. As long as you want energy out there, solar is the unquestioned king.


No, you are not going to get it to the earth's surface, not in any usable quantities.

There's this little thing called the "inverse square law" that tells any competent engineer that megawatts beamed down become microwatts at the surface (roughly). And that's not counting any attenuation due to that pesky atmosphere that's in between.

And even if you could, you have created a death beam 22,000 miles tall and some unknown distance wide, that will kill any life life form passing through it. Migratory bird fry, anyone?


It's one of those magnificent technologies that sounds so promising it simply MUST be true.

Except for those pesky little laws of physics that keep getting in the way.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Private efforts will eventually get us off-planet in a big way. I define "big" a lot more modestly than many do. Gigantic government and multinational efforts are a worse idea than ever, but when entities that are much smaller than entire nations are able to put together a viable space program, the move off-planet will accellerate. We have already seen the early stages of this happening.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Maybe. It'll have to pay, like a mining operation pays. As usual, Third World countries will whine about wanting a share they're entitled to and extort money in the U.N. by trying block any effort to bring an asteroid anywhere near the Earth for "fear" of an accidental in-fall. Money will grease that "fear."

The West will try and tax any efforts to death which means launch pads will have to be extra-territorial. In desperation, the West may enforce international standards.

My fear is you have idiot politicians who will do anything to fill their coffers to feed illegal aliens, put people on welfare and feed Africa. Trust me, the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian Caucuses have no interest in space.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
You do realize, I hope, that you are wasting your time reading trash. You could, and should, be reading Aristotle, Aquinas, Montesquieu, Locke, and a few hundred others, all of whom are more solid, more lasting, and better writers than the stuff you've described.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Worthwhile, yes - enough to help us in the 21's century, probably not.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
I like all the people you are suggesting. Is it not possible, though, for some more contemporary writers to be worth reading? The "Jurassic" in your user name implies that you think all intellectual fervor has become extinct.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
The "Jurassic" comes from a guy who called me that because I espoused positions that he regarded as coming from that era. I'm actually in here as "tehart," but the comments thing seemed to require me to re-register.

Has all intellectual fervor become extinct? The "fervor" in the sense of passion may not have become extinct, but the passion for the pursuit of excellence is close to extinction. I haven't found much "literary," i.e., non-genre fiction that I care to read since the death of Kerouac, nor much post-Beat poetry.

Victor Davis Hanson is generally readable when he writes about history. Donald Kagan is good on Greece, and Rick Atkinson's Liberation trilogy is a magnificent series on WW II. Shelby Foote's trilogy on the Civil War is good too. I'm currently reading Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower. She's liberal, and The Proud Tower is largely about politics, and I'd prefer more about art and literature, but it's readable, and not marred by an obsession with strange cults.

I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but Kenneth Minogue has a book out called The Servile Mind, based on what I've read by him I'd say that's probably worth reading.

I went through a mild craze for Julia Kristeva back when I was Piling Higher and Deeper, but I'm not sure I care for her that much now. Lacan is not worth reading, nor is Foucault. Camille Paglia is more interesting than some of the French intellectuals, but because she is more of a popularizer than most academics, who publish papers in journals destined for the moldering shelves of libraries, is sometimes derided by those same academics.

43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Any living writers who I have your approval to read and write about?
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
No.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your encouragement and kind words are appreciated.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
William Blake said, "Opposition is true friendship." (Marriage of Heaven and Hell, if I recall correctly.) If you're going to presume to write about philosophy, you should spend at least a little time becoming familiar with philosophy, and that means Plato, Aristotle, etc up through Kant, Nietzsche, Russel, Wittgenstein and the rest. If you're going to write about literature, particularly English or American literature, you should know about Chaucer, Shakespeare, Pope, Melville, Hawthorne, and the rest.

If you want to correct the deficiencies of your education, you need to go back to the beginning, which means starting with Sumeria and the Bible, and go forward.

The stuff that you have assigned to yourself in your reading programs is largely trash. You'll get more out of reading Locke and Montequieu than perusing volumes of books about Freemasonry and how its reflected in the design of Washington, D.C.

It's a lot more intellectually demanding to read Aristotle or Kant than it is to read pseudo-historical books about Masonry. Guys like Howard Bloom are lightweights who will disappear in a few years.

Conservatives should be the guardians of the past, which means they should know, respect, and revere the cultural icons of the past, even if they argue with them. To bypass these authors is the mark of the barbarian.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Trolling the comments section and anonymously trashing me is not true friendship.

And it's presumptuous of you to judge the deficiencies of my education when you've never met me. I'm already familiar with the philosophers and literary figures you name. I certainly have a lot to learn but I have been reading philosophy and literature seriously for the last 15 years. And I already read the Bible every day and advocate for everyone else to do so.

If you haven't read James Wasserman's The Secrets of Masonic Washington or any of Howard Bloom's books then you're in no position to judge either as trash. I don't appreciate anonymous commenters showing up here, pretending to be my friend, and then trashing the men who really are my friends and who have the courage to write books under their own names instead of just leave internet tough guy comments.

If you want be a true friend and communicate with me about the books that you think I should read and the direction you'd like to see PJ Lifestyle take then my email is DaveSwindlePJM @ Gmail.com
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All