First off, I want to welcome you all to this new series of discussions, inspired by our good friend, the Philosoraptor. In this series of discussions, I will, at the very least try to, provoke thoughtful response on a number of questions from a broad range of topics. Some of these topics will be on subjects that concern us now, such as political observations, to things that will likely not affect us until even I am dead and in the dirt.
If you see something worthy of note, please let me know. If your views are differently, tell me, and, tell me why. The very reason philosophy exists is to try and change another's viewpoint. Something said here could very well change completely my, or someone else's, view. Also, please keep in mind that I, for the most part, speak in generalities, and if you find error, please alert me of such.
Anyways, on to the meat of the post.
In popular culture of science-fiction, we are presented with scenarios and occurrences that, while unlikely, could theoretically happen. This will range from the "mundane", a base on the Moon and genetic engineering, to the "don't-count-on-it", of galactic domination and time-travel. But since this tends to form narratives of what could be, we can use this to model our actions against.
While reading [or watching] the typical Science-Fiction, we see a theme for the Colonization of Space, which often follows the fairly simple formula of: (Earth invents Space-Travel → Earth colonizes known Universe → Humans / Universe Prospers → Earth made Political Center of Universe.) Examples of this include the entire Star Trek universe, and the Ender's Game series by Orson Scott Card.
Now while this formula is good and all, why do we always suppose that things will be so peachy keen? One supposes that if Earth was to form a colony elsewhere, be it Mars or the Moon, we would expect that colony to produce, through means of money or resources, for the government or organization that provided its means of existence. It's a question of "Why Invest, if we get Nothing from it?" That is by all means a legitimate question, as it is human nature to want to "get something out of it", to receive payment on an initial investment. But at what point will the colony change from nothing more than a resource mine, to a sovereign Nation-state or Planet? Will there be a set time-frame for this? Or will it happen through Revolution?
I say this because there is ample precedents in our history, precedents that are rather hard to ignore. The easiest example I can give (because of where I live) would probably be the colonization of North America by Britain. Up until the 1760's, the Americas had primarily been a Resource Mine, to coin a term. They were used to provide cotton, sugar, and other raw materials were shipped to England, and was then sent back in the form of manufactured goods.
An example of the Atlantic Triangular Trade. (Click for Larger Image)
As time went on, tensions increased and came to a boiling point with the 1765 Stamp Act. The events that followed led to the formation of the United States as we know it.
To bring us back on point, what can we learn from this? From the way I see it, if we simply engage in the act of colonialism with the intention of enslaving some place that is not currently "ours", either the colony will fail, or we will gain little more than an embittered colony population and another chance for warfare. But, if we keep ourselves aware, and our eye on the endgame, we can allow said colony to become sovereign after a set time. Better to plan for it, than to cause it to happen through war.
For those of you Reading this, what are your views? If/When humans colonize extra-terrestrial regions, what should be their course of action? How should this be brought about? At what point is it appropriate to let go of something that is advantageous to you? Leave your responses in the comment section below. Man, Is that how RayWilliamJohnson feels when he says that?
Words cannot describe...
