From: mabw0164@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Date: 20 Dec 92 10:27:19 -0400
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Dec18.232035.27415@newstand.syr.edu>, pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
> In article <1090@dgaust.dg.oz> young@spinifex.dg.oz (Philip Young) writes:
> 

< lotsa related stuff deleted>
 
> I guess didn't make this clear enough in my first post.  It is precisely
> for this reason that groups would choose to abandon the territorial
> paradigm.  The alternatives are 1) get squeezed 2) make war.  Neither
> are attractive.  (Oversimplifying here, yes.  The point is the general
> principle.)
> 

1 - Getting squeezed is usually a very good reason to make war of some sort.
    Right now the most violent areas in North America have population 
    densities measured in hundreds per square mile.

2 - Making war may not be attractive to the general populace, which doesn't 
    have as big a say in things as it likes to think. But to a government faced
    with overpopulation, it provides a number of attractive factors. One is
    that territory (ie planets) provide a relatively cheap means of relieving
    population pressures. A second is that losses in war results in the same 
    as the first. A third is that economic interests generally improve during
    times of conflict (note that for North America, specifically Canada and the
    US, WWII was a godsend when jobs couldn't be found). For the price of a
    few hundred thousand lives in a population of hundreds of billions (or 
    actually any similar scale), this is a boom at pretty cheap prices.

>>|> [stuff about gypsies]
>>
>>So they're cosmic vagrants.  Their territory then becomes their ship(s).
>>plus a possible defensive perimeter.  They *still* have territory.  
> 
> On the scale of things we're talking about, you're splitting cillia.

That's what it's all about, isn't it?

> 
>>How
>>would they acquire their tradable knowledge?  Who, do you suppose, would
>>just give these romantic vagabonds their technology, or anything
>>commercially or militarily useful?  
> 
> Anybody not as advanced or approximately as advanced.  In the former case,
> benefits are obvious.  In the latter case, it seems unlikely that any
> one group would have been able to come up with all of the 'tricks' 
> themselves.  There would be ample opportunity to trade information in
> mathematics alone.  
> 

Assuming constantly friendly relations, of course. How many ships in the past
suffered problems while travelling around the world because some bozo on a 
previous visit screwed around? It would be just as convenient to seize the 
ship and its crew, and plunder its knowledge.

> Also, anybody who was the least bit curious about xenology would just
> love these folks.  They would buy xenopological information (or the
> chance to gather it) from less advanced folks in exchange for bits and
> pieces of technology.  They could then trade this information for raw
> materials.  (They'd have all the processing ability anyone would ever
> need.)  There's also detailed maps of star-systems, and diplomatic
> intelligence about other advanced races.  They'd be asked to broadcast
> queries about open problems in all sorts of fields.  Everyone with 
> enough smarts would welcome these folks with open arms.  
> 

Huh? What you propose here is at least related to espionnage, and on a 
commercially run scale. Not everyone would be sympathetic to that. You're
also assuming they're the only ones out there. What happens when their
innocently passed-along information leads to the conquest of another guy's
star system? Not everybody plays by the same rules.

>>They *might* sell goods and services,
> 
> Only to less advanced folks, and definitely.  More advanced folks would
> only be interested in information.
> 

BS in a big way. We are, on this planet, the most technologically advanced
civilization presently in existence, and goods and services is our most
rapidly expanding business sector.

>>I imagine they'd also get a pretty hard time if they came within spying
>>distance of a system-based culture. 
> 
> The only folks who would be capable of giving them a hard time would have
> absolutely no interest in doing so.  What in the world would they get out
> of it?  (Unless they were pathological xenophobes, but again, these folks
> would be at a severe disadvantage.)
> 


Just a point: the British army was arguably the best equipped and trained
in the last century. It took over 30,000 Zulus to defeat 800 of them. They 
were, however, defeated. Techonololy is NOT necessarily a proof against
perseverance and numbers.

>>Freelance traders at best, with a
>>culture as likely to produce pirates as heavenly harmony.
> 
> And just WHAT would these folks get out of piracy?  The harm to their
> reputations would far outweigh any benefits.  (Which are miniscule when
> you think about it.)
> 
> 	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
> 
> 

Pete, my boy, your prejudice shows. I know of few pirates in history who were
overly concerned about reputation. And if you want to know why they'd do it,
H. Beam Piper's "Space Viking" gives a relatively good reason. Good 
reputations ( of the type you seem to imply ) are really only important to 
people comfortable with what they've  got. Piratical free traders are as 
likely to roam the spaceways as neo-flowerchildren.

As for what they'd get: food, exotic items, raw materials, precious metals. 
The list could go on forever. Not everybody can afford trade or even wants it.

Joe
01fortec@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science