New Mars Forums

The Kurdistan idea certainly has merit, but I expect we'll have problems simmering whatever course is taken.

What we need to do is find a way to get the Iraqis to form the single, pro-US republic that we want, but in such a way as to make them believe that it was their idea. I shall ponder on this further.

Gotta get back in full Machiavelli mode.

Well said, Bill, exactly. And one of my objections not only to Scott's proposal but to Martian "constitutions" in general is that they worry about the lawyers in the absence of guns and money. It can't be backed up, what's the point?

Basic principles are one thing, but detailed plans for the workings of Mars governments and social engineering schemes are a bit excessive at this stage.

It's not about credit, but motivation. Specifically, where is it? Why go out of our way to include people who can't contribute when we could do it better and cheaper ourselves?

Another flawed example. The Articles of Confederation were never meant as a temporary system. They were only replaced when their failure became impossible to ignore. Why follow this as an example?

I can sympathize with this view. While I would prefer to take the problem head-on and do it right, I can't blame you for wanting to avoid the hassle. I firmly believe that the Outer Space treaty must be discarded if Mars colonization is to take place, but that is a fight for another day.

Cobra:

Has warfare been abolished? Is the world at peace? Last time I looked the US, including troops from New Jersey and New York, was engaged in a war and Europe was having problems in its Balkan backyard. It's all about the size of the "tribe," who we identify as "us." If New York and New Jersey had a world to themselves, I would expect conflict to arise in time. As for Europe, the peace is a thin veneer. Time will tell how permanent it will be.

I'd bet on a united Europe myself, but only because there are other nations lurking nearby.

And finally, good luck Mundaka!

Which begs the question, who is going to expend the considerable resources to get people there in the first place? Unless a nation or corporation can get recognition for their pocket "municipal government" in advance, colonization won't happen under these treaties. They should be discarded, not built upon.

Besides, if we accept these treaties, then no nation can lay claim to Martian territory, putting it outside the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

You don't see a problem with this? If the United States or China are going to spend billions to set up Martian colonies why would they give a rat's posterior about whether it benefits some dirt-farmer in Zaire, or Congo or whatever the hell they're calling it this week? Doesn't this strike you as a hindrance? besides, if the US sets up a colony under direct US sovereignty, others will follow, technology will advance, society will progress and all of humanity will benefit. Not all at once and perhaps not equally, but these treaties ensure that no one benefits.

Fine, let Uzbekistan and East Timor and whomever have a neighborhood. What does it have to do with the actual settlement of Mars? The list of nations that have a chance at settling Mars is short. Why engage in exercises that deny that fact?

Attempting to "develop" a culture is pointless and possibly harmful. Cultures happen in response to a multitude of factors, they aren't consciuosly created to fulfill a specific purpose. The few times this has been tried do not offer encouragement for future success. For example, North Korea is a superb example of a "developed" culture based on all sorts of wonderful-sounding principles of equality and progress. I'll pass... the ammunition if that's what it takes.

Silly humans. So easily controlled.

Then my question is this: if you accept that the proposal will become unworkable, why start it in the first place? Why not begin with a provisional system that will lay the groundwork for, and naturally transition into, a permanent system?

Actually, the danger posed by the hydrogen has been vastly over-rated. Hydrogen requires Oxygen to explode, the gas "cells" of Zeppelins were sealed and filled only with Hydrogen, thus there was no real danger. The major problem with Hindenburg was not the Hydrogen but the aluminum-impregnated coating on its surface. This caused the brillaint flames that witnesses reported, Hydrogen would not have. The Hydrogen didn't ignite until well after the initial fire started.

Check out the footage sometime, it's clear if you know what to look for. First off, the Hindenburg continued to float even as the gas keeping it aloft had supposededly exploded. When it finally hits the ground it bounced? The skeletal framework would not have been able to withstand the impact let alone bounce if the gas cells were not intact. Finally, the cells melted and released the Hydrogen, which ignited as it mixed with Oxygen on its way up.

For comparison, during WW1 germany used Zeppelin bombers. Interceptor aircraft firing incendiary rounds into their gas bags had little effect, unless they first perforated the airship and allowed air to mix with the hydrogen, taking several minutes. Only then would they catch fire and crash after a strafing run.

Scott, let me first say that while I strongly disagree with many of your proposals here, I find them interesting and thought provoking. You have clearly given the subject considerable thought. While I am going to attack, it is merely on a philosophical level.

It was not my intent to imply a forcible invasion so much as the surrounding area falling under control of the expanding colony. The colony which refuses to expand its own territory and influence gradually loses influence and in time becomes irrelevant and dependent on others. Shortly thereafter, it ceases to exist as an independent entity.

Does this constitution also mandate zero population growth and provide a fool-proof mechanism for enforcement? Does Mars have absolutely equal distribution of resources over its surface? Unless you can answer an emphatic "yes" to both questions, the entire premise is flawed.

As a colony grows it will need more living space. Actually, I'm going to use the German Lebensraum just for the hell of it. The growing colony will need to expand it's lebensraum. If colonies are within the 21 Kilometer arrangement to start, it won't be long before that 1K buffer becomes a real nuisance. Sure, they can expand away from each other, but eventually they'll run into neighbors there too. Maybe they can expand in a convoluted web of 1K buffer zones in order to comply with the constitution and maybe they can't. If not, either the settlements will fight each other or they will fight the authorities trying to enforce an irrational and arbitrary rule. If a particularly valuable piece of land is thrown into the mix it heightens the potential fo conflict.

Either the planet gets mined and divided between all colonies equally and selective abortions and sterilizations become the norm to maintain the needed zero population growth, or the whole plan is unworkable. Not to mention the people that will work against it anyway. How many involuntary sterilizations, deaths and "re-education" programs are acceptable?

I was thinking that cultural assimilation would be more likely than genocide, but we never can tell what might happen. There will be warfare on Mars eventually, unless we stay the hell off the planet! To deny this is to indulge in preposterous and dangerous fantasy.

And therein lies the problem. The Moon and Outer Space Treaties are based in flawed quasi-Marxist concepts and the UN charter is little better. All three examples are deeply flawed. I would have started with the Constitution of the United States of America and worked from there, but you are certainly entitled to your approach. But don't be surprised when it doesn't work and people subvert it at every opportunity.

But it does require them to accept the principles within that constitution, which like it or not represent an ideological framework all its own.

Electric shocks?

Well, I suppose it's time to work on that treatise on Martian combat again... Maybe for the '04 conference, see if I can get shunned for heresy again.

Terran transplants, hands down, at the expense of the native life if need be. Make Mars America.

Personally, I'd prefer to find no life on Mars. Life means delays and negotiations and permits and on and on. If we find some and can use it, fine, if we find something that doesn't affect us in any way, fine. But if we find a bacterium that causes the blood-willies or something, I'll be happy to see Terran transplants wipe it out.

Another point to consider is that the introduction of Terran life and terraforming may very well help the native life. If it is similar to Earth life it should thrive in a more hospitable enviroment.

Save the Martians. Terraform.

Actually, it has occurred to me that our entire approach to treating disease is bass-ackwards. We try to kill the organism causing it, thereby ensuring that only the strongest survive. Those are usually the most damaging.

Why not work with evolution and encourage the weaker, less damaging strains. We should be engineering new strains of malaria, influenza and every other bug that afflicts us and intentionally release them. Make a strain of Ebola that just gives you a mild cough, that sort of thing. The more dangerous natural strain kills its host while the closely related engineered strain eventually dominates due to it's mild effects.

Yes, that and every family produces a blithering fool from time to time. Of course, genetic engineering could remedy this. It is possible that it may allow a hereditary line of kings who really are smarter, wiser and stronger than everyone else. A better monarchy through technology, hail to the king.

Of course I'd still be happy to encourage the malcontents

I'm sorry, I just couldn't hold that in. Still, you really have to see the movie to get the full effect, it really needs to be said with full Charlton Heston over-acting. It's people!!

Why Byron, that's an wonderful idea!   I promise a soy-based chicken substitute in every pot and a 9mm on every hip. Thank you Mars, and good night.

Here's why the Dems haven't and won't propose any ambitious space program. The Democratic Party is composed of several smaller groups, each of whom demand certain things. Space exploration helps none of them, therefore the Democratic Party is unconcerned with it. It doesn't feed anyone, it doesn't provide healthcare, it doesn't subsidize housing (well, for astronouts it does), help minorities, pander to homosexuals, peaceniks, communists or anyone else and it doesn't appeal to any significant block of Democratic voters. The Dems treat Space exploration with the same contempt as they do Defense, only NASA is an easier target because it doesn't really perform any vital function.

Twice a US President has called for a manned Mars mission. Republican both times. This is not a fluke, it is simply the nature of the beasts. Space exploration helps defense contractors, there are no "we only make rockets for peaceful uses" corporations in the game. Space exploration depends on defense contractors. The elephant likes to keep them happy. The donkey has other things to worry about.

In short, if you really want an ambitious space program, vote Republican. If we get enough real conservatives in they'll actually start running NASA like a business and we'll really see costs come down.

That said, Bush's plan sucks on so many levels I don't know where to start. But at least Mars is on the table.

Several years ago I started writing what was meant to be a short story, but quickly ballooned into an as yet unfinished monstrosity of Tolkienesque proportions, that addressed this problem. What I came up with was a sort of rationing of life-extending genetic manipulation based on the actions of the person in question. Longevity by merit. For example, military service entitled one to a basic set of treatments. Distinguishing oneself in the field leads to a more extensive effort, superb generalship more still, etc... Which could make promotion difficult for the next generation.

The real question (which I'm still chewing on) is how do you set the requirements in every form of labor, and are there any which should be exempted? Success in the military, scientific or engineering sectors is easy to quantify. Politics gets a bit fuzzier, and what about the arts? Certainly one shouldn't automatically forfeit life extension by becoming a painter, writer or musician; but what defines greatness in such cases? Many would consider van Gogh a great artist, though I never really cared for his work, who makes the call? And the prospect of Britney Spears living for 200 years fills me with dread.

Such a scheme may not be compatible with a democratic society as we understand it, though it can be quite reasonable. you can do essentially nothing and live a normal lifespan, work to better society in some way and live longer, or become a criminal and have it reduced.

Rambling on, I have often wondered whether virtual immortality would tend to breed cowardice and a general aversion to risk taking. Some balancing force might be needed for that reason, a sort of you only get more life if you can risk what you've got mechanism. No sense having some rich hermit live in his mansion for centuries like a vampire.

Again, this requires constant expansion.

Once it is invented, people will want it regardless. Some will get it.

Still, I'm not sure we have the option of just not inventing it. We may be approaching the point where our collective technology and knowledge makes the method of extending lifespan obvious to so many people that it can't be contained. Rather than the end of civilization we may be approaching the point at which we have to make some difficult choices. Will we die out, or will be become a spacefaring, expansionist species. I prefer the latter myself, but my own imperialistic leanings are no secret here.

This could be akin to the argument currently waging over the US oil supply. Do we conserve and run out a little later, or do we exploit more sources to buy time until we face the same choice again. One way it's all over, the other we get another shot.

Oh, I can't resist...
Soylent Green is people! It's people!

Based on my experience with scientists and engineers I've known (a few) I'm not sure the geneticists (never met one) really look at the long term implications so much as just progressing with the work. Certainly some are looking toward curing diseases and extending life (for profit) but my impression is that for many it's just a job. Time to splice the genome...

Looking at it from a political/philosophical viewpoint I have some thoughts on it. Eliminating genetic disorders is good. I also have no problem with screening fetuses for such problems and correcting them before birth, and I mean "correcting" in the sense of repairing the problem so the child will be born healthy, not the more sinister "correcting" by eliminating a defective individual that should not exist. This may be where some of that Nazi vibe comes from, never quite knowing for certain what words mean.

But how far should this correcting go? life-threatening or immobilizing diseases clearly should be fixed, and most would say that parents shouldn't be able to arbitrarily meddle in such minor details as eye color. This isn't a a new car, everything affects everything else. But then what if the data suggest the kid will only be 4' 9" when fully grown? Is that a health problem or simply a cosmetic problem? And if we allow all sorts of cosmetic fixes at the genetic level they will most certainly be based on standards of beauty at the time, so everyone will be having the same mods done. What does this do to the gene pool? After a few generations of this behavior everyone might be the genetic equivalent of first cousins.

My biggest concern is actually this: If we can correct defects at the genetic level, then presumably we can correct damage later in life from radiation, etc. Likely by doing so we can extend human lifespans considerably. Now, as much as I'd like to live forever, once everyone can we have problems.

To again invoke the Nazi angle, we need lebensraum!

Being that Earth is working towards critical mass already, we'd better get moving on Mars and maybe that hyperdrive too. 20 billion healthy people who each live for 250 years packed together on this planet won't be pretty, just feeding them all is a daunting prospect.

Have you tried the Soylent Green?

Like so many other things with this Administration, It's both encouraging and disappointing at the same time. At least Mars is on the table, that's gotta count for something.