Division of Wealth

Dava's Treaties on the Truth of Humanity...

See here: https://scotspol.blogspot.com/2019/02/politics-peace-intersolar-travel.html

Dava's Treaties on the Truth of Humanity

David Shaw. 43yo . Scottish.

The Truth of Humanity  

'Humans need resources, it doesn't matter if you are politically left wing, right wing, center, upside down, back to front, if you are some racist person, if you believe in God, if you don't believe in God.. humans need resources.
it is an overwhelming fact of life.'

This fact cannot be contested it is so inalienably true.

-

I will endeavor to continue this, that each idea presented here is an inalienable universal truth.

Politicians should protect primarily the beliefs of the people they represent, as society itself is based on belief. Each and every person on the planet requires resources, so it follows politicians represent a function of society to achieve satisfactory provision of resources while preserving the beliefs of the people they represent.

The Earth has limited resources. It is our home. As human beings increase in number; the Earth must provide more resources to sustain these new humans.

The Solar system has unquantifiably large resources, more than enough for humans. Water is abundant which can provide oxygen and hydrogen once diffused.

In all the universe we look for other intelligent life. This being said; we know human beings represent a unique consciousness in our solar system, so it follows, every life has value and all lives must be sustained; without question. But more than that..

Every second of every human life is precious.

It is a universal truth that humans in our natural state; our time is metered. We will die. So the value of those moments *must* be infinite, because it doesn't matter what your neighbour thinks what your life is worth, to you it is your consciousness and existence.

Every human being has the right to be their natural self.. what we humans colloquially call 'happy'.
If your neighbor has provide your every meal without choice, they then effectively become your servant.
In the system I suggest, everyone is rewarded, no one is punished or forced to be servants to either their neighbour or money for the betterment of humanity.

In systems of social improvement, exploitation *must* happen.. however I suggest we exploit not a person or persons, but the Solar system itself to pay for our embetterment and growth as an aware species.

So we provide for all through exploitation of our solar system, and in doing so we give all the freedom to live their life as they see fit; without servitude.. and we do not make anyone pay for it, we pay for our needs through said exploitation of the solar system and so no one need pay tax ever again.

The ultimate job of politicians is to, gain resources, protect culture and bring freedom to order. Politicians must provide order through policing and rehabilitation or incarceration.

So the goals are clear:

1. resources

2. culture

3. freedom within order.

Eventually the Earth will no longer be able to sustain mankind. Even sooner than this, the quality of life will become worse as we try to sustain the humans we have.

There are business that pollute the Earth. However these pollutants, such as CFCs in different atmospheres (Mars, Venus) would not pollute but be absorbed. Businesses could move to Mars and put CFCs into the atmosphere and raise Mars' temperature. Allowing them to continue making their products, attaining profit, all the while improving Mars' atmosphere for human habitation.

Our Earth, Our Moon, Our Sun.. these are nicknames, personable love for our home, but if we are from Mars the moons are Deimos and Phobos.. in the future instead of 'earth' martian humans may have a nickname for Mars.. like Red or Big Red, but it's name will always be 'Mars'.

Our Earth's official name is Terra. Our Moon's official name is Luna. Our Sun's official name is Sol; our system is 'the Sol system'.

As an aside.. I would encourage those with wisdom to call the inner asteroid belt; 'The Sol Belt'. because 'Asteroid Belt' is far to generic and has a fumbling short-sightedness towards the future. I suggest 'Asteroid Belt' be demoted to a nickname.. like 'Earth', 'Moon' and 'Sun' are those bodies nicknames while the official name being The Sol Belt.

Crime and Punishment

Criminals who are removed from society will not offend against society again. But as moral humans we must differentiate between, damage to property and damage to human life.

Theft of all kinds should be treated as damage to property and so non-violent. Everything that is not unique can be replaced.

Murder is damage to human life.

So .. some politicians argue this. some argue that. Human beings once dead cannot be replaced. This is a fact.

I contend that the power be given to judges, but not of any other culture but judge *only* the culture they were borne by and grown by and reside in, that the power is given to judges for a sentence of imprisonment by mining intersolar resources to pay not only for their own life but to provide for humans.

No prison escape could ever be planned. Space is too hostile. Escape means death.

Human life is beyond measure. Damage to property should never result in death.

Matters that must be judged:

Dealing narcotics.. did they result in death?

Death in Adultery.. was the murder a crime of passion?

Adultery..did the partner suffer, did it ruin a family?

Environmental damage.. did anyone die? Should the board be imprisoned for misconduct leading to damage of human life?

Resources and Prestige

What do humans require? 

Resources and prestige, what resources do humans require and how they be motivated to attain resources and provide services to other humans once they have every resource provided to them?

Humans require:

Nourishment & Hydration 

Warmth & Clothing

Land

Housing (enough to rear many children)

Energy/electricity
Hygiene

Medical/Dental

Education 

Transportation

Liberty in movement, work & residence

Providing these things is a not a light proposition. It takes an entire society to provide a high quality of life for human beings.

Human beings crave prestige; the thought that their society values them.. this is not an absolute law, but an allure of immortality in remembrance. Prestige provides such a thing. To be greatly valued in a field while alive and remembered once dead.

Society must provide a reward whilst giving everything required for human comfort. The reward must be greater liberty in exchange for work.

I propose that we humans work 'terms'.. a term would be 4 years. A system of prestige should be devised to give a worthy reward.

Not purely meritorious or a meritocracy, intent should be rewarded. Not to punish those who can't or won't  .. but always reward those who do. If you have a qualification in a field and pursue that field.. it is a profession. It shouldn't matter what that field is..bee keeping to spear making to curator of a private museum. If you have a degree and have pursued it as a profession.. you get a term for every 4 years. In society people themselves will decide what they think of other people's terms..

I have a Vocational Degree in Sound Engineering and Music Production. Working in the arts is always difficult to find regular employ and the artist temperament means we take longer to digest before we share. I would say for artists a lighter social requirement be placed for proof of work but a longer gestation per term. I suggest 10 years .The Arts are not a dangerous profession, it is unlikely the person would die before completing quite a few terms. 

What are the greatest gifts politicians can provide for us?

Answer: as many children as we wish, sustenance for said children and maximum liberty within society.

Money brings personal empowerment over quality of life and so aspiration & liberty. Money brings a human psychological quality of trade and trade brings peace. But no human must be under threat.. to threaten humans is to provoke war. .

We must take threat out of the equation, but still maintain society, We do this in how we structure reward. If someone is told they may not go to Mars unless they have first provided at least 1 term, they cannot have an 'off-world' permit and they want to go to another intersolar body, the drive they feel *may* urge them to work at least 1 term. 

I want to use words that are easier to communicate, I want to say; we have *near* unlimited resources; it would take thousands and thousands of years to use up those resources even with an excessive population. So when I say 'near unlimited' this is what I mean. 

We have enough resources in the solar system that human beings can live a high quality of life, each and every one without threat of death or threat of liberty or threat of war.

Human beings as far as facts provided so far, are the only fully conscious beings in the universe.. as far as we know. Each human is precious. We should allow humans who do not contribute to society to continue their lives. We do not reward such behaviour but we do not punish it with threat of deprivation of necessities also. 

Human beings should have the *right* to a high quality of life and very long life expectancy. Every human.Without exception.

Only those who jeopardize life should then have their life jeopardize. Only those who jeopardize liberty should then have their liberty jeopardize.

One is old, one is new.

The idea of an 'Army' or 'Navy' or 'Airforce' is outdated the second we have access to near unlimited resources. These brave patriotic people will still exist as a strata of future society, however their job to protect their country and by evil politicians gain resources for only their country should end.

In the past war was a tool to gain resources and end in peace. This costs human life.

As a member of our Service, you should abhor war.. why? because war ends peace, every soldier's end goal is peace, but by providing near unlimited resources no politician will ever have the excuse to require making war with another country.

So logically it follows that a unified Service controlled by one world body would end war. Every enlistment would be to the Service and no country would have their own military and so cannot go to war.

Every one of the Service is taught these principals: 

1. War is a useless antiquated expression of ego at the cost of human life.

2. War means the extinction of humankind, because as war functions to gain resources, we will continue use war as a method to gain resources and so never leave this planet.

Weapons of war upon the planet could kill the entire human population and this will escalate with man's better understanding of science eventually through human error and arrogance we will destroy ourselves, it is inevitable.

3. Humans killing humans is wrong. I believe in divine providence. I currently know of no politicians that are 'divine'. No soldier *wants* to kill anyone. They *love* to protect and preserve their countries way of life.

4. If a Service person is told to be dutiful to a politician.. no matter that politicians rank, that Service MUST disobey that politician, and I will explain why here:

Politicians are no longer in charge of you, let the World Council that operates the Service issue your directives and orders. By listening to a politician you risk ending world peace. It just takes one Service.. one person makes a decision to listen to a politician and a moment later.. a million million people are dead, displaced, dying, sick, children are malnourished .. because ONE lone Service was foolish enough to obey a politician.

War is obsolete. Why is a politician issuing you orders?

Will it gain more resources for humankind and so cause more peace? no.

Let the police and justice system deal with those who disobey your laws and in other countries their police will deal with those who disobey their laws.

The saying goes: Not my table, not my problem.

The World Council only have control of the Service so long as they maintain world peace. So long as they facilitate providing resources for everyone. Even one Service could bring down the World Council in a day by obeying a politician.

The World Council is unfit for purpose IF: 

1. They do not maintain peace.

2. They do not provide sufficient resources management and distribution.

3. They do not provide liberty within the confines of society and local culture.

War is obsolete. Why are you asked to kill anyone?

The Service's job is to protect humans, to gain intersolar resources to maintain world peace.

The Service's job is NOT to kill anyone. The Service *may* be armed as an extreme precaution to stop people at Spaceports acting strangely.

You may be a engineer, security, medical .. if you are security your job is to simply stop idiotic behaviour in space and on intersolar bodies. Civilian areas should be pretty 'idiot proof' having nothing they can touch to cause trouble.

And finally..

The worth of Humanity as a race of beings can be summed up thusly: If we stay on this rock, fighting over this rock.. and die on this rock. maybe we weren't worth it after all.

If we value life by valuing each other and spread out across our solar system and eventually the stars.. then maybe we were.

Dava

Scots Language: The Right to Scottish Culture.

Hullo

Firstly, I would have wished to write this in Scots to further our own culture, and dispel the myth that Scots is a language of the uneducated.. obviously when we are *only* taught English in school and given the impression that English is 'correct' by our own academia on impressionable minds of 5yo and up.. as adults we are left with the impression that English is the intelligent language and Scots for NEDS. All such thought does is destroy our own culture and curb us by ourselves into destruction as a peoples.. we should end English being taught in Schools and begin Scots as our Standard language alongside Gaelic.

That being said, for broad appeal and so others who are not Scots can read this, let's discuss the points.

We have a duty of care towards our culture, to preserve who we are as a peoples, might I remind the reader, we are the descendants of the Gauls, along with the Irish,Welsh, French, Cornish.. and extended The Catalans and Lombards (Northern Italy). We Scots as you know were the only ones do defend against the Romans. Descendants of the Pictish Gauls and Highland Gauls, The Picts who were the Elite Fighting force of the Gauls and protectors of those who would make the long journey to trade in silver to Galatia, whom Saint Paul spent time with and then wrote a letter to 'The Galatians' this was our colony in Anatolia.

Today, we are in a cultural purgatory.. with shades chasing our every thought, perhaps this is too poetic, let me explain:

The language of a peoples is the core of it's culture, without scholastic authority the culture dies.
More people from around the world respect latin or greek than are aware Scots as a language, you see their culture is oft remembered? Oh the irony that I write this in English! Ye widnæ credit'yt! Deid folk huv mær culture thun alive wans!! it's madness!

Here are some writings I have shared on this topic;
Quora:
"Hi
A large slice of the Scots population speaks ‘Scots’ the sister language of English, as Portuguese is with Spanish, Norwegian is with Swedish, Arabic is with Hebrew.
Scottish Standard English is what you are referring to.

In Scottish Standard English, we speak English but with the same accent we normally use for Scots, there are many different accents within Scotland, I am from the West Coast and speak with a West Coast accent, which is close to Glaswegian.

The history of Scots and English can be traced back to the same root, they both come from The Danelaw, and are variations on the Germanic family of the Jute Angles. This ‘Early English’ Anglo-Frisian (Danish) developed into both Scots and English.
Scottish people like myself, do something called ‘code-switching’ , you see this in the Philippines with English and Tagalog, but because Scots and English are sister languages it’s easier for the listener to get confused if they are not familiar with the Scots words used to pepper the speech.
So in short, both yes and no, you can compare ‘Early Scots’ to ‘Middle English’.. and even today, Modern Scots is closer to Middle English than it is to Modern English, I would say the Scots accent itself is probably ancient, going back through to the tongues of the Gauls, the English can still sound easily German in accent if they are not thinking too hard about it.
To be clear.. the reason I speak about Scots is, Scots came BEFORE Scottish Standard English, that’s what people were speaking.. and before that Gaelic.
Examples:
Scots
Fæ o’wer yon hill awe the sheep came ben runnin’ gee mæ a riȝht friȝht! Wæ tail waggin’ ahun’yt tæ. Happy ays ye like!
English/Scottish Standard English
From over the hill all the sheep came here running, gave me such a fright! With tail wagging behind it too. Happy as you like!
Scottish Standard English is said the same as English, but with your voice you would use for Scots, only the words change.
--links missing--"
"Hullo
Ah enjoyed yon ænswers gee’d si fær.. hmm miby ma æn pest guide oan the mætter wid help yez.
Hæ yursel a time wæ iyt!
Dava's Scots for English Speakers
Grammar, Diction and Syntax
Scots is a poetry based language, unlike its sister language English which has ridgid rules of expression and any deviation is considered slang. English is founded on the principles and pillars of versatility and clarity. Scots is founded on the principles and pillars of ingenuity and elegance.
Crafted throughout each paragraph of speech is something known as 'patter' patter specifically is the humorous branch of Scots micro-poetry. However the micro-poetry can be crafted into any form.
In the 'Personifications' Alba ends her interview with '.. How time flies but never stops.' This is a micro-poem. The meaning of which is.. time itself has boundless energy, but as we travel along with time, we become tired. This is an expression of exasperation mixed with reflection.
Groupings
Scots vs English
In Scots we did not use 'Be' prefix-ligature as often as the English do. So.. with us it is..
A'cause and not Because. I've not heard of 'A'come' instead of 'Become' but to me its a no brainer that aforementioned could drop into common usage easily, however, it's not happening as yet, so I did not use it.
Aye = yes
Naw = no
Ah = I
Maw = mum
Da = dad
Bru'er = brother
Wean = child
Bairn = baby
Wan = one
Twinty = twenty
Hunner = hundred
A vs B
A'cause
Afore
A'furiyt
A'gun
A'hind
A'hun
A'huneyt
Atween
vs
Because
Before
Infront (of)
Begun
Behidden
Behind
Behind (of)
Between
--
Næ vs Not
Cannæ
Cudnæ
Didnæ
Isnæ                                                                                                                                                            Widnæ                                                                                                                                                      Urnæ
vs
Can not
Could not
Did not
Is not
Would not
Are not
--
Scots Ash vs English
Næ
Wæ
Tæ
Fæ
Mæ
Dæ
Hæ
vs
None
With
To
From
Me
Do
Have
—
æy vs ay
Sæy
Wæy
Læy
Pæy
Dæy (‘happened the dæy’)
vs
Say
Way
Lay
Pay
Day
—
Yogh vs CK (this correctly uses Yogh instead of c, yogh covers cgh)
Oȝh
Loȝh
Moȝhkyt
Dreeȝkyt
Sleeȝkyt
Gleeȝkyt
vs
Oh
Lake (Lock Water Gate)
Muck (laden)
Drowned (and dark)
Sly
Gormless
Yogh is used to represent the thoating noise we use in the above words.
Correctness of Grammar in Scots can be an Abuse
Let me explain:
It does not matter the rules of which you speak Scots, think about Scots like a living breathing democracy with each word by each person having its own right to exist, no it is more the emotion in which something is said. In Scotland we at the time of writing have many generations who were emotionally abused for speaking 'slang' by people who wished to further the cause of the English language & culture. So in conclusion it is not wise to force rules on the Scots language .. but instead have commonalities and use them as a guideline.
In Scots on the West Coast we say 'huv' this is incorrect Scots 'hæ' is correct Scots and is from the East coast.. however 'huvnæ' is correct Scots 'hænæ' is incorrect. This microscopic dichotomy shows that Scots speakers themselves.. trying to correct someone may mean you are seen as someone who is trying to further the cause of English and dissuade the cause of Scots.
We are poetical in nature, and so as poetry is a living breathing emotion, our language is this also.
--links missing--"
And finally:

"As a native Scots speaker, I enjoyed an outside perspective. Thanks J[redacted] :)
I *will* add something that is missing from the linguists scope however..
It’s culture. It’s politics.

In School we are taught not to speak Scots as it is considered ‘slang’.. this is enforced by and for the benefit of English Culture, rebranded as ‘British’.
This led to a *very* strange dichotomy, that all those 5yo who were taught in School to accept English, believe they are speaking English when they are in fact speaking Scots. It’s a form of brainwashing. School teachers are taught to reviere the English language and so culture and they enforce this with the children.

I myself was slapped in the face 3 times over the course of being in primary School (5yo to 12yo) for speaking ‘slang’ when I was actually speaking my own tongue of Scots.
When Scots go abroad and try to speak Scots to others.. no one understands us.. we say things to excuse this to ourselves like ‘oh our ‘accent’ is too thick.’ it’s a plain fact.. if you are *meant* to be both speaking the same language and one doesn’t understand the other.. then it’s not the same language.

When I lived in the States for 3 months.. only 2 people out of the dozens I interacted with could understand me speaking normally, the rest I had to switch to English.
So.. in conclusion.. it’s brainwashing of those fertile young 5yo minds, that we speak ‘English’.. so now they adults, their minds either refuse to admit or make the same excuse they made when they were children ‘it’s an accent.’.

Scots while being the sister language to English, isn’t going anywhere.. but my fears grow more and more.. the more I think of our culture and how it is disappearing. If only we could wake the Scottish peoples up to Scots as a language.. we might have some protection."

I wish the Scottish Parliament to use Scots and Gaelic as the academic languages of Scotland and in The Parliament itself. The more we speak English the more we are English in culture and thought.. as it is well known, your language defines your cultural behaviour.
Let the children learn English online when they get home.. they will do it regardless anyway, no one can stop them, watching American movies and TV shows etc.. Scots for School across the central belt, with at least 5 hours of Gaelic a week, and the reverse for the Highlands, Gaelic with at least 5 hours of Scots a week.

Margaret Thatcher took all Scottish History off the syllabus .. I wasn't taught about Scotland until a teacher, God Bless him was being made redundant (second year) one afternoon told us everything, we were captivated! I was 14yo and had never heard anything in school about Scotland. I would have learned LOADS about England if I had paid attention.. knights and kings and queen and.. blah blah English stuff.

This is a common occurrence with the Scottish peoples.. ask around.. what were they taught?
The core as I said is language.. we are brainwashed into English culture via it as a language. 2013 was the first time I had ever heard of Scots being a language.. an' ays yon mirror reflects the thoughts o' ma eyes.. ye see well wit is written oan ma face.

kind regærds

Dava
(David Shaw, Dumbarton 43yo, Saor Alba)

Why would an independent Scotland wish to join the EU?

Hi

Firstly, I would have wished to write this in Scots to further our own culture, and dispel the myth that Scots is a language of the uneducated.. obviously when we are *only* taught English in school and given the impression that English is 'correct' by our own academia on impressionable minds of 5yo and up.. as adults we are left with the impression that English is the intelligent language and Scots for NEDS. All such thought does is destroy our own culture and curb us by ourselves into destruction as a peoples.. we should end English being taught in Schools and begin Scots as our Standard language alongside Gaelic.

That being said, for broad appeal and so others who are not Scots can read this, let's discuss the points.

::::::::::

Scots who wish to leave the EU do it for a specific purpose, they wish to curb immigration to increase jobs and industry. This is a noble concern, and I completely understand where they are coming from, however those days are gone..

These days everything is global with good reason, if say.. you begin an industry and pour a country's wealth into starting said industry, this *might* work for a year or two.. but then any other country, specifically China will come along and do it better for cheaper. And so you have lost that fortune you pumped into that industry.

No, the only way to maintain an industry is to have a prestige country for that particular product.. Scottish Scotch.. French Wine/Brandy.. Swiss Chocolate.. German Sausages.. Belgian Steak.. Italian Dairy/Bread.. Norwegian Beer*..

Any other country that produces said products is instantly seen as inferior, as the prestige lays in origin.

The best way is to trade over borders without tariffs.. this makes trade seamless.

:::::::::

Creating jobs isn't as easy as it was in the 1960's.. why??

Because the 'UK' was poor.. so like China we were the poor ones working for lower living standards than the rest of the First World.

And actually this mindset has continued with teeny tiny houses that aren't fit for purpose nevermind a life debt of 200-300K.

It's a total joke the rest of the First World lives in houses and we in the 'UK' especially Scotland.. live in glorified dollhouses.

The standard of living hasn't moved in Scotland since the 1850's.. sure we have more modern things, but the houses are smaller than ever, so much so they are joke and no wonder we have people emigrate for a 'better life' abroad. This and Imperialism are the two main causes for traditional Scottish emigration.

Having a job is a goal to a better life, if we accept wages that would compete with the Chinese we could not even afford to eat everyday.

:::::::::

Being in the 'UK' is *designed* to make us financially strong, however due to endless streams of corrupt Imperialists, Scotland is hanging on to the claim of being a First World country by a thread, when in fact I see us closer to a Second World country.

This can only get worse as trade with Europe declines.

Where does all the money go?

To feed the rich. If that is too vague allow me to be specific.

English politicians come into office in Westminster, they then play the system.

How?

They will have rich relatives and friends who are in certain industries, whether it be war or banking, it doesn't matter which industry it is, they have many ways of raiding the BoE without being held to account.

£10 Billion Contract to sell NHS land. £200 Billion contract to bomb Syria.. both given to the Capital Group et subsidiaries. Philip May is an important executive for the Capital Group.. that's Theresa May's husband.

The English are stolen from, in fact we all are from English Tory Imperialists.
The only reason we still get what we pay for in Scotland is: The SNP.
Think about it.. what Nationalists would lower themselves to corruption??
None. because that's what the Scottish Nobles did that got us into this mess in the first place.

IF.. IF as opposing parties claim the SNP has a level of incompetence.. flip sign me up! I'll take an honest person over deliberate corruption; 100 times out of 100.

The EU is NOT corrupt.. it CAN'T be by design.
Farage would have you believe it is, but because the way countries can veto what they do not like, it cannot be.

Money given out comes back, usually with interest.
So.. how is that corrupt?

We in Scotland pay 40 Billion in tax every year, excluding oil, we get back for our block grant 30- billion and Westminster pockets the rest every year.

The Barnett Formula does not account for in goings, only what the allocated budget for the 'UK' is. This does not include the billions and billions spent on needless war. That goes to companies owned by 'chums'.

::::::::::::::::::

*(they invented modern beer.. well done!)

The Moonbase: one of the greatest ideas to fly economically.. OR The Law of Maximizing Returns

Hi www

There is a simple truth to the earth and space travel, building and launching ships from the earth is wildly expensive.

Building and fueling from the moon means the following:

1. It is less effort to build on the moon, the weights involved for the construction of the ships is less meaning it takes less energy to assemble.
2. We can build ships as large as we want, so when we fuel them the tanks can be as large as we want, so we can burn harder burning more fuel to get to the solar bodies quicker. We can build tanks as large as we wish. We can build comfortable crew, cabin & passenger quarters for long space flights because we are not limited by weight, as we are on the Earth.. launching from the earth costs many many times as much fuel per gram of weight because of gravity on the earth.
3. We can diffuse Hydrogen and Oxygen from the moons hidden underground ocean. We pass electricity through water to diffuse the H2 and O, hydrogen gives us fuel, oxygen gives us air.
4. We can use the moonbase as a communications case also.. hmm this might need more detail..

-------

Imagine a scenario where there are humanoid shaped robots, you are the brain and are remotely controlling the robot, the robot does not need oxygen, in fact it is a great way to be safe as the only thing the robot needs is electricity.

Imagine a sphere shaped room you go inside and inside the sphere are screens, there screen display roughly what the robot sees.. however this is only for background light diffusion, because human eyes are sensitive to light, this room will help the immersion.

A suit is suspended with thousands of thick strings.. these are the strings of the 'Puppetmaster' who will control the robot, the strings help add an additional layer to controlling the robot. Motion sensors (like Kinect), suit sensors, mapped out like a nervous system also provide input..

But also feedback and output to the PMaster.

Q: Why go to all this trouble?

For safety of the humans.. not only for their lives, but it would mean to replace the crew, we would require more launching from earth, which we are trying to avoid. 

If say, a large metal structure fell on a human, even in a low grav environment, this would NOT be good.

Preserving life IS paramount to the moonbase for several reasons.

1. moral within the crew.

2. moral within the world perception of the project and its funding.

3. Ability to prevent costly delays to the project.

4. Ability to prevent increase costs by having to search for qualified persons to replace the person who is injured or has died.

-------

     5. A point to consider is overall weight for usage case.. what I mean is, IF we had humans who were 4ft tall total, we could then provide: smaller living quarters, reduced overall weight of the launch from earth, what we *really* need is their minds to control the robots, so all the equipment mentioned above could be to their scale. We have been building for humans who are 6" to 6"5' and if instead we were building for humans that are 4" would mean a weight reduction of 1/3rd.

NASA could even use the Virgin Galactic style of launch for the whole base and launch it to the moon, this being a one way trip for the base, with a Space X style ship waiting for the crew on the moonbase site, should they require it.

This way would be VERY costly.. however, in the long run would cost less than many many earth launches in succession.

In the long run it saves a fortune, meaning the base is already completed and fully equipped, no assembly required and can get underway within a very very short time, a second base would be built by the crew of the first base to accommodate larger humans.

I am not suggesting those with dwarfism, who would struggle with the g-force.. without taking this to a racial place, I have met and known Filipinas who were this height naturally, fully intelligent capable bodied humans, all we are trying to achieve is weight reduction. only. Only.

The overriding thought behind all of this is being able to launch humans quickly and cheaply to the moon, for intersolar exploration and travel. Eventually mining resources.

The best way to do that is have a moon base that is manufacturing vessels and launching them. While Mars will be a great boon for humans.. in the long term we should be looking at launching to Venus also from the moon, building on the moon the vessels that we can send to Mars, that will go to Ceres and the Outer Solar System. Mars and Ceres being fueling stations.

If we can fully make a another moonbase whilst on the moon and launch it to Ceres this would mean having potentially the same resources on Ceres. Having a Space X style ship waiting for the crew on Ceres to return to Mars or Earth with a second crew in rotation. But this, as I said, is for the long term.

Dava

Why does England want to keep Scotland, Ireland & Wales?

Hi

This is a very long story with much history.. so grab your favorite hot beverage, put your feet up and stick your fav music on.

Early Gaul Period (7000BC - 500BC)
The Tribes of the Gauls (Keltoi* which means ‘hidden’ in Greek) inhabited a large part of the European continent, much of which is now France.

We spread out to these Isles from the land bridge which was the southmost part of Doggerland, over the Dover Strait, the north of Scotland was still frozen from the last mini-ice age, but this ice was thawing at amazing rate and as it did, Doggerland became flooded and became the North Sea.

But by then the Gaul tribes had populated these Isles, c5000BC to 1500BC, We built Crannogs over lochs and had semi-modern lives, a home, a place to sleep, a place to wash, a place to get food at our doorstep. We learned how travel across these Isles and how to return to Gaul (France)

Sometime around before 1500 BC, the Welsh developed a new way of purifying silver, the high lead content before this, I imagine gave everyone a green sickness due to the lead and or galena content*.

When the Welsh Gauls first arrived, they were ‘strangers’ and called the Cymmerians which.. funnily enough means foreigner.. they just can’t shake that name hehe. Soon they showed they were fierce warriors on their own right, using elongated poles to take down horsebacked riders, something the middle east tribes had never seen, and unhorsed force taking down a horsebacked one. They also had every guerilla tactic of the other Gauls. Just as the Gauls they were.

We were over much of the European Continent already, so a trade route was established to Anatolia to trade with the Middle East.



The Gauls had accidently discovered continental trading and got rich with it, so rich in fact, we could found our colony of Galatia.. the same Galatians that Saint Paul writes to were.. Gauls. So if you are Christian and a Gaul descendant, I suppose you like me, can hold that book with a special place in your heart.

Saint Paul’s book does give us insights, however slight, in to Gaul values of family and travel, both were fundamentally valued with high prestige, you were how good a person you were to your family and tribe and if you were highly travelled you gain prestige easily .. he also mentions how the Gauls did not mock him for being sick, but instead took care of him.. they sound like a kind people to me, nothing like what many English have described as ‘barbarians always killing their own kind’ I guess the victor can write the history.

The Romans had seen what the Gauls had and wanted it for themselves, so from 500BC onwards.. that’s what they were trying to do.
And amazingly, they *almost* did it.. taking over all of continental Europe.. except.. The Pictish Gauls.. now, the Pictish Gauls were the ‘Elite’ warriors of the Gauls, had complete gender equality from year dot, walked about naked all the time with only paint/tattoos covering them, the women strapping a child to their breast grabbing a spear and going hunting! Næ messin’ aboot!

The Picts were NOT to be messed with, born to fight and put through every kind of harsh lifestyle the other could throw at them.

Middle Gaul Period (500BC - 1000AD)

Welp.. the Roman Army showed up thinking it would be pretty easy, nope. they got slaughtered. Næ FEAR! The only objective is to kill more of them before they kill you. Over the next 200 years, they started just avoiding the Pictish Gauls. And then built a wall as a symbol of.. you stay there, we stay here.

So after the Romans left.. the English (Saxons) took hold.. well not exactly, for around 500 years they had been pirating off the south west coast, making raiding groups and trying to settle in a weak spot for the Gauls, when the Romans invaded, the Romans didn’t mind the Saxons and let them settle there, most likely in exchange for paying tax, The Welsh also integrated into this scenario, and from what I hear the Welsh and Saxons kinda like it.

When the Roman Empire fell and the Romans withdrew, leaving only a few that settled as normal citizens.. all was peaceful for a while, because the Welsh and Saxons lived like they had under the Romans .. then one day it occurred to the Saxons.. ‘hey! no one is here who can stop me doing whatever I like!’ so they started raiding the Welsh.. this made the Welsh pretty mad, and they fought back and won.

The South East of ‘Saxonia’ was a settled site for the Saxons, they still raided the Welsh and kept Welsh slaves. This ‘situation’ went on for a few hundred years..
Sometime around 843AD*.. a Norwegian Sailor turned Nobleman turned politician united the Picts and the Gauls together under one banner.. Alba.

First time the Saxons wondered up here wondering what the fuss was about, they sent a raiding party up, they never returned. Second time, they took it more seriously and took up a portion of their army, facing a somewhat small band of Picts, the Picts slaughtered them, with only few being able to flee for their lives.

Well.. from that day forth it was love.. no not love.. obsession with owning Scots and Scotland.
When King Hywel, such a meek kind man in nature, of the Welsh capitulated to King Æthelstan making him *even* richer.. it meant the killing of the Welsh’s cousins for generations at the hands of the English.

Late Gaul Period (1000AD - 1603AD)
An endless circle of the English trying to subdue the Scots and the Scots ultimately winning out, oh it was not without the periods of ownership.. but ultimately.. freedom.

Then came the Union of the Crowns and an end to national faith in our monarch.. King James was a good man. But his idea of the Union and the idea that a ‘barbarian’ as he was called by the English .. often even in his own court, could have any noble idea, was alien to them.. littertally alien, he was not accepted by the English Nobles who whispered about him that he was trying to ‘act civilized’ eg. English.

No.. they saw this ‘Scots’ trying to ‘fop it up’ and impress some English nobles and gentry.. they were not impressed by his efforts.

Modern Period (1603AD - 2019AD)

There was a lot of shifting in politics and religion, but ultimately Scotland was a separate country. muddling through as best we could.. we had maintained the old links with France and Ireland, we fought beside them they fought beside us, we are family, just as we always were.

For Scotland 1707 was a tragedy, let’s recap eh?

The English Empire begun with the East India Trading Company, it brought boundless wealth to England.. The Scots Nobles were jealous of all the money and favor of the Monarch.. so they conceived of a similar scheme, the Darien Scheme, set to go to Panama. They petitioned the King but he refused, many times over, he refused, so they decided to put Scotland’s entire fortune into the scheme.

William of Orange, the Protestant King ran around killing Catholics.. he also sent his spy, Black Thumb, to go with those travelling to Panama, and the only soldiers that would agree to come were the ones who massacred the McDonalds at Glencoe.The King’s soldiers. It would have been so easy to put something unclean in their food or unclean somewhere hidden..I mean for generations two sets of people to bribe and those pesky Scots sheltering Catholics..

When the Darien Scheme failed all of the Scottish Nobles were broke.. suddenly out of nowhere a big barrel of money and a jolly Englishman appeared to take all their troubles away.
Those who accepted the bribes.. well.. they sing endlessly in Hell ‘ My God, what have I done to you to deserve this?’.

For poor Alba.. the music played upon the signing was:
‘Why am I so sad on my wedding day?’

The day after in 1707, in Edinburgh and Glasgow there was rioting and lynch mobs of people going around looking for the Nobles responsible.. so they could kill them.

3 Jacobite Rebellions. Last one in 1745
The Highland Clearances. 1750 - 1860
The Highland Potato Famine*. 1846 -1856

The Scots.. just left.. emmigration seems the easy way out, it’s appealing to leave behind such misery and forget.. left for Canada, the US, NZ, OZ..

And it’s true today, our emmigration rate is very surprising to others considering our small population.

(1885) Charles Stewart Parnell begun the Irish Nationalist Movement..Scotland took a bit longer, oh there was interest but.. I think we were 1. Queen Victoria loved us better than the English and we liked that, first time in the Union being equals with the English. 2. I dunno if.. too many people had left, I have no idea why it wasn't as strong as the Irish at that time.. but I do note, we are going the same journey, just 100 years later..

(1949) Ireland becomes a Republic.

(1969) SNP candidate Winnie Ewing wins a by-election.
Scotland’s oil is discovered shortly after. Nationalism soars. The journey begins in earnest to Independence of English rule.

Let’s be clear here.. every Englishman* likes to believe his system of Westminster is established in a just and fair way.. this is either his inability to face the guilt of fact or he is unaware of how the system was laid out to incorporate the constituent countries.

The oil.. is a guarantor for the Pound.
Scotland leaves*.. the pound tanks.

The Welsh are pretty happy with the English.. so are the Cornish. They enjoy to stay owned.
Ireland for the most part has left.. I hope Scotland will be next.

So to sum up..

We are the modern day descendants are, first exclusive then inclusive; The French, The Scots, The Irish, The Welsh, The Dumnonii (Kernow).. and I would include the Manx, but I suspect they have died out. Inclusive; French, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Dumnonii, Catalans, Lombards, (Some) Romanii, Anatolian Turkish.

Ancient Gauls.. a dynastal family with a 7000 year history.

.. and we don’t like Imperialists.

---

*KELTS - ΚΕΛΤΟΊ - www.HellenicGods.org
*have you ever had jewelry that turned your skin green? This was most likely because of the high lead content.
*(The French Swiss and French Belgique are included with France, I found it too presumptuous to claim upon their heritage)
Northern Italy - Wikipedia All people of all states I include under the name ‘Lombards’.
*This is my ‘traditional view’ tale of King Kenneth.. unless you want to endlessly debate in circles about the ‘two Kenneths’.
*The people couldn’t pay tax while starving and dying.. so the ‘British’ aka English government sent some soldiers up to Scotland to kick them off their land. No wonder they left for other countries!
*using ‘man’ majoritively.. I also mean woman and she.
*English as mad as washing up liquid cake.. refuse us the pound should we leave?
*it could be argued that the French are Imperialists.. until I point out they WERE Imperialists for a short time.. and then they killed all their nobles with guillotines and became a republic.

What's missing?

Normans..
French wars of Independence from England/Normandy
Franks
Goths
Irish Potato Famine.. but that NEEDS to be detailed to be kind to my Irish brothers and sisters.. so no. I’m not touching that.
But hey.. it was busy 9000 years! gimme a break!