New Mars Forums

Sorry to take this off-topic for a bit (I know I should be setting a good example instead  ) but I saw a lecture given by some economists about the social security problem in the US, namely that the two youngest generations are soon to get a shock when their taxes go up to pay for pensions. What's the US going to do about this?

My mistake - I hadn't read your earlier post properly. I think that some kind of lethal weapons will inevitably become available on Mars, and it would be best to restrict them to trained police officers (so I agree with you).

China is certainly gearing up, but it's still quite unstable. It remains to be seen how they'll adapt to free-speech enablers such as the Internet (still heavily and improbably censored over there) and the US enjoys such a massive technological lead over any other country in the world that I doubt they'll try anything any time soon. Plus, Taiwan tends to be the main area of contention between China and USA, but things are looking good in that area now with hopes of peaceful reunifiction taking place in the future.

I have got no idea what this has to do with Human Missions to Mars, and it smells to me very much like an intelligent alien topic (Venus as extrasolar - constructed? - object). So that's where it goes.

While I agree with all the sentiments expressed here, let's look at it from the point of the US govt. and NASA (not that I necessarily agree with them):

o Humans to Mars is expensive. We could use the money on countless other things.

o It's dangerous. What happens if someone dies? The public will hate us.

o Robots are nice and cheap and people won't care too much if they crash. Plus, they actually do produce good scientific results, and they seem to keep most people happy.

o Space exploration is not in favour right now, and NASA can't do anything right. Just look at how they handled the ISS - if that can't do that, how are they supposed to handle a Mars mission?

o The public isn't that bothered about going.

So for them, there's no real urge to go. I can think of rebuttals for each of the points above, but even so they all have an element of truth in them, which is why the US government still believes in them.

I'm not sure that the side effects can be that widespread - after all, it is used by millions of women across the world, having been approved by the FDA and other authorities. I do concede that some people will experience some nasty side effects though. You have to remember that astronauts going to Mars will already have to accept a not insignificant amount of risk by mere exposure to cosmic rays; any medical risk posed by birth control pills will be tiny in comparison.

But yeah, men should use condoms. Plus, there's been some news about a very effective male pill which is safe - it's already in extensive human testing.

Aetius: I think that's an overly simplistic argument. I'm personally an advocate of gun control, as we have here in the UK and Europe, but I do understand that it's a controversial and unclear issue. For example, in countries with gun control there is significantly less violent crime and gun-related crime, despite the spiel about 'only criminals will have guns'. But you can read statistics in different ways.

I'm not against the formation of a Martian security force; a police, basically. We forget that Mars will be a completely different world to what we know now - in the early days it will be much more difficult to construct guns considering that the equipment will not be available and there will be more important things to build. Plus, there's the possibility for ubiquitous and transparent surveillance of all colonies - what that'll do to violent and gun-related crime, I don't know.

I'm of the optimistic opinion that we won't see too much crime or war on Mars. The worst types of war occur when ideology is at stake (you never see any wars between first world countries any more), and frankly, I don't believe that countries or organizations that promote this kind of ultra-xenophobic ideology will have the money or inclination to send a colony to Mars - at least, not until long after more democratic countries set up colonies.

Plundering colonies for food or resources: I very much doubt it will come to that. I think that colonies will help each other in this respect, and also receive aid from Earth. Colonies will have months or probably years of emergency supplies of food, and they'll know well in advance whether they're going to have a problem. And if they have the capability to go and plunder another colony (lots of rovers, lots of people, weapons, etc) I wonder why they don't have the capability to grow their own food. After all, on Mars colonies will have to be self-sufficient for all the basics.

Thread moved to Civ-Culture forum - more appropriate given its content.

While browsing for information about the world cup, I found a whole shedload of articles making fun about two things: the USA's famous indifference about football (or soccer, as you colonials like to call it  ) and their idiosyncratic way of describing sports matches and player stats:

A US website headline: "GOAL Mexico 0 - 2 USA. Two soccer points to no score! Landon Donovan top-bodies the sphere into the score bag, and Mexico have a double-negative stat!"

A BBC News article writing a football match report in US sportswriter style: "...The soccer World Cup, a regional show based on Major League Soccer, concludes June 30 at the Grand Series finale in Japorea."

England roster rundown, US style: "Dave Seaman - Goaltender with a .675 save average in last four, the Arsenal Gooners veteran dresses ahead of other netminders James and Martyn and looks for a fourth consecutive shutout. Stats breakdown of just two handling errors with no turnover. In the frame to make all-star team of the World Cup series."

Okay, okay, it's over the top, I know, but we're just getting back at you Yanks for making fun of football all the time! 

Comments on Skeptical Environmentalist: I don't have the book with me right now, I lent it to a friend - but I'll have it back in a few days so I'll be able to comment in greater detail. I think a lot of the criticisms of Lomborg's work stem from the fact that it is so unbelievable that the environment is getting better! Look at it this way, we've been told continuously that the world is going to end due to global cooling/warming, and that oil supplies will run out in twenty years (just like the time it'll take fusion to get started, eh?    ). So when someone comes along and says, "Well, it isn't that bad after all, in fact, in some cases things are good!" it seems laughable.

But the book is not one that rests on 'assumptions' or similar woolly thinking. As I have said in other threads, it uses unimpeachable data from the world's best climate and environmentalist experts. It uses the same data that all the environmentalists use - but it points out some of the serious errors in their analysis. Notably, many environmentalists are fond of extrapolating trends from insufficient data - e.g. if there is an increase in grain prices for the last five years, they are oft to say, 'Food prices are rising! We're all going to starve! The sky is falling!' even though:

1) The long term 50 and 100 year trends show a constant downward fall, and
2) The next five years of grain price data show another sharp fall (this is a true example, BTW).

Now, this thing about risk/reward ratios is very interesting. There's been an interesting study (I'll find out the reference soon) carried out on the cost required by many different methods to save one 'life year'. It turns out that environmental measures such as reducing cancer-causing pesticides or putting SO2 filters on smokestacks can cost way over $1000/life year.

$1000 for a year? Sounds like a bargain to me. But hold on a second, if there was a federal law to install fire detectors in every house and apartment in America, the cost per life year saved would be below $1! So you really have to look at this stuff in perspective - yes, we can save a lot of lives by cleaning up the environment. But we can save even more by taking simple everyday precautions.

One last thing about the psychology of risks: humans tend to exaggerate small risks and underestimate large ones...

Finally (!): The environment is not in as good a state as it could be. I don't think that things are perfect, and neither does Lomborg. The point being made here is that the environment is not as bad as its being made out to be.

Bill: I look at that Calvin link you supplied, about the cycle of ice ages and Milankovich cycles. Interesting stuff - I can't really comment though, I don't know much about the subject and the Skeptical Environmentalist doesn't cover it. AFAIK, exactly where we are in terms of an incoming ice age is not precisely agreed upon and it would probably take a few hundred years at least to get really nasty, but we'll just have to wait and see - I could be wrong! 

There's a story at the Mars Society homepage about the German chapter's efforts to produce a balloon probe for Mars:

Done - I made the new forum. Threads that are clearly about intelligent alien life are being retroactively moved there whenever I see them (so I can't guarantee that they will all be moved straight away). If people make disruptive posts in the middle of threads about intelligent alien life, then they will be warned and further such posts will be deleted. If they get too annoying, they'll be banned - and no, this is not censorship.

If people want to talk about this sort of thing, they can do it in the appropriate forum. If they start disrupting existing threads, that's unacceptable. If you don't like this arrangement, then New Mars is not for you.

Brad, what on Earth does your post have to do with this thread about extrasolar planet detection? If you want to talk about Venus, make your own thread about it. If I see any further disruptive posts that clearly have nothing to do with the thread they are in, I'll just have to delete them.