New Mars Forums

Josh: 

Uhmm....you should see how we vote here in South Florida these days  :0   Due to the great Election Fiasco of 2000...we were mandated to come up with new, "foolproof" balloting systems...and what they came up with is a completely computerized, digital voting system...no paper ballots whatsoever.  That's right...welcome to the 21st century...

I must admit, the new touch screens are a joy to use...just touch your selections, and when you're done, just hit the "vote" button.  Your ballot gets stored in something called a "pleb," and that gets dumped into the main system at the end of the day.  As for physical traces of the ballots....I've been wondering about that too.... ???   But paper ballots, even plastic tabs...no, that's already long gone, right here, in the year 2002...

B

I agree...let's keep those two little moons...

KSR's whole idea of building the space elevator on Mars with the moons in the way was a bit absurd in my opinion...as if that little wiggle-dance that elevator did would inspire confidence to anyone using it - not me! 

I'll stick with good old-fashioned shuttles, thank you very much... 

B

I think the real reason the U.S. used the atomic bomb on those two innocent cities in Japan was anger and revenge.  The U.S. resented the fact that we had lost so many men fighting the Japanese, the Bataan death march, etc, and we just lashed out, pure and simple.

As for the justification that we needed to nuke Japan to end the war, why did we go for a double strike, when they were ready to capitulate immediately after Hiroshima?  Hell, why didn't we just bomb an airbase or something..to send the message that we now had the "Big Stick," and were willing to use it.  We might've killed a couple thousand of soldiers, but certainly not 200K women, elderly and children  ???  And yes, they would have run up the white flag just as quickly as they did when we bombed the two cities.

It's a shame that the U.S. has been able to use the propagada machine so effectively as to convince the writers of history that it was the proper thing to do...it's amazing how few people speak out against that terrible event, even after all these years...

B

I have a couple of questions to ask of those who favor spining the ship...

Assuming that Coriolis problem can be licked by using lengthy tethers (I'm still queasy -excuse the pun- about that idea...it'd be so easy to get that thing all tangled up), what do you think is the best level of gravity to use for the voyage out to Mars and back?  Would it be a better idea to start off at a full 1 gee, and gradually slow it down to .38 gee over the course of the journey to Mars, or just start out at .38 gee and leave it at that for the duration of the voyage?

I think .38 gee would be imeasurably better than having no gravity at all, but would it be enough to maintain shipboard health for months at a time?  After living in Martian gee for two or three years, I wonder how difficult it would be to suddenly adjust to Earth gravity...

If only they would use the ISS as a platform to carry out these types of experiments...there's just so much we don't know!...

B

Hey clark, I'm not biased towards Golconda...just attempting to justisfy the reasons for its existence..lol...I suppose if Ares really wanted to become a Martian corporate superpower, they would have to become involved in a whole lot more things than just mining.

Your thoughts about the Mormons eventually working for the corporation is all good and well...but what of the consideration that the two settlements are on opposite sides of the globe?  The Mormons have centered their resources at the location of their original settlement in the Hellas basin..sure a few workers would probably migrate to go to work for Ares, but I think most would rather stay with their brothers and sisters...most people with a herd instinct don't like to strike out on their own.

The whole point about Ares building a city so that people could come from Earth is that Ares would then become a major player in the fledging Martian economy, as opposed to just sticking with the whole discover/devour/move on thing.

All this is just speculation...so I like to look at these things from different sorts of angles.

As for Mariner,

I described the process of selecting the founders of Mariner...I imagine it would make sense for the existing members of Mariner taking over the process of selecting new immigrants from Earth...how do you suppose they would carry out that process?  Continue to select the best and brightest of Earth that want to come to Mars?  Pick people with the most appropiate skills?  Or will they have renounced their 'elitist' society and just pull in 'average' people for the sake of diversity (and to have people perform the less desirable jobs? ) 

I'll leave it up to you guys to discuss those possibities...

B

Bill:

Who's to say that it would take a hundred years for Ares to turn a profit?  It might take 20 or 30 years to get the ball rolling, but if Ares had the technology to get established on Mars in the first place, I would think they could get a decent-sized settlement going and be making money from their mines within a reasonable time span.  One reason for convincing others to come and settle at their city is to generate a domestic marketplace that would be intrumental in getting the costs of production down.

That's the thing, if Ares enjoyed popular support, if even only in the Western countries, the 'buzz' of a new frontier being developed by hardy settlers...that would likely encourage individuals to buy Ares stock, driving the price higher, making it a 'hot' commodity, like the internet companies in the 90's.  Yes, I suppose Ares Corp stock would crash sooner or later, but hopefully that wouldn't happen until after they had gotten a solid foothold on the Red Planet! 

Aslo, the new settlers would essentially be paying their own way over there, but but they will yield a positive outcome within the Martian economy, which can only help Ares reach profitibility that much sooner...

B

Thanks Shaun, for such an informative reply!   

In case if you're interested, I'll give you a rundown of how the employment system works in the U.S.  First of all, taxes:  The U.S. Federal tax system works on a graduated scale, ranging from 10% for <$15,000 p.a., up to 38% for anything above $70-80k p.a. (not sure of the actual figure).  While that's lower than the Australian rate of $48.5%, there are the state income taxes to consider, which can range up to 10%.  So, yes, in some of the high-tax states, high-income earners do pay close to half their income in taxes, although this figure is usually lower in actuality, due to the deduction system we have here for things such as children, mortgage interest, etc.

As for the Social Security pension system, the rate is set at 13.5%, half of which is paid by the employee and half paid by the employer.  If you're self-employed, you're required to pay the full amount, on top of all the other taxes you're required to pay.  And then there's all the other taxes, such as property taxes, sales taxes, car taxes, ad infintum...  People from other countries have a habit of insisting that U.S. citizens have it easy when it comes to taxes, but when you take into account of certain benefits that we don't get (such as health care) that is 'included' in other countries...I would have to say the U.S. tax rate is on par with most other Western countries.  The one exception to this is gasoline (petrol) taxes...taxes on that is far lower than you typically find in other countries...even Canada and Mexico, our next-door neighbors, have much higher gas taxes than the U.S.  So yes, in this respect, we do have it easy in the U.S.   Cheap transportation is almost a god-given right these days, it seems, and I don't see this changing anytime soon.  Why do you think the U.S. is so hard-up about Iraq?...

As for workplace regulations...yes, we have plenty.  OHSA, the agency that regulates such things as workplace safety, has become quite strict in the past few years, and inspections are more vigilant and frequent than most employers care to see...lol.  But workplace accidents have continued to fall over the years, so this is not such a bad thing, really.

Also, each state manages a Workman's Comp system (for workplace injuries), and for such high-risk occupations, such as construction work, the cost of this is very high (and continues to soar, despite the decreasing accident rates)...which is why it's now so costly to hire a electrician or someone to re-roof your house. (Do-it-yourself home repair has become all the rage these days due to this fact.)  The high cost of Workman's Comp is one of the main reasons why employment in the traditional 'trades'...such things as plumbing, electric, carpentry, etc, has been dropping over the years...the type of high-paying jobs that a single bread-earner without a college degree could support his family on in the past. (This has also been true for other, blue-collar, union type of jobs.)

The U.S. has now what is called a "service economy," in which most of our economic output comes from the services people perform for each other, ranging from food service workers, store cashiers to software engineers and accountants.  We import just about everything that is made in a factory..lol..how the U.S. economy manages to run monster trade deficits for decades on end without difficulty is beyond me...as that seems to fly in the face of common sense.

Since only a tiny fraction of 'service' jobs are unionized, memberships in unions has been on a steady decline for decades, and is quite low at the current time (<20% I believe).  Whether this has been a good or bad thing or not, I'll leave it up to others to debate that point.

As for employee benefits, the law really doesn't require the employer to provide anything other than the minimum wage, which is currently set at $5.15 per hour.  But most companies who provide steady, full-time jobs offer what is called the 'standard package.'  This includes such things as two weeks vacation (to start, this increases for length of service), a few 'sick' days, comprehensive health insurance and a 401k pension system (matching contributions up to a certain percentage of one's salary.)  The standard work week is 40 hours, with an unpaid hour for lunch, although it's common to see people on a 37.5 hour week.  15-minute breaks in the morning and afternoon aren't required by law, but employers usually include them as part of the standard workday.

The 'standard' benefits package the vast majority of employers offer in the U.S. today is the primary reason the government hasn't gotten involved in mandating workplace benefits like they have in Australia and other countries...but there are signs that this system may be buckling, mainly due to the soaring cost of medical insurance.  Many companies are struggling to pay the costly insurance premiums (remember that Workman's Comp is an added cost on top of that), and if current trends continue, the majority of employers will no longer be able to offer health insurance as part of their standard benefits package in 10-15 year's time.

As for productivity and the level of employment...The U.S. actually has a huge "black" market (sometimes called the gray market), in which people are hired to work under the table, so to speak, to avoid the burdensome taxes and Workman's Comp payments.  This is especially true for immigrant, 'migrant' workers...these are often hired to work in the fields on a seasonal basis, and paid in cash with no benefits (and no taxes, either!)  It is this sort of thing that often said to 'lubricate' the U.S. economy...if in fact, the Feds initiated a huge crackdown on illegal immigrants and the black market in general, the U.S. would probably experience a full-fledged depression as the source of cheap, willing labor dried up.  Food would rot in the fields and supermarket shelves would go empty, even as inner-city ghetto 'home boys' continue to loaf around all day, smoking their 'blunts.'  (Laugh if you like...but that is so very true! )  Like it or not, the black or gray market is here to stay...we're become too dependent on it to attempt to get rid of it.

This is why I favor the most lenient immigration policy feasible.  If third-worlders are willing to work in the fields under the blazing sun for endless hours for minimal pay (work that no American citizen would even think of doing, at any wage), in order to put food on our tables, than we should let them.  As far as the immigrants go, they are still making several times what they would earn in their homeland, and indeed, the economies of many a 3rd world country is supported by the funds that are sent home to family members from the migrant workers in the U.S.

I often hear my friends argue that America has already reached its carrying compacity and that immigration should be greatly reduced, if not cut off completely.  I say balony...there is so much empty space in this country that we could double our population and still have room to spare...just look at the dense population of Europe, for example.  Indeed, America's vaunted productivity, which is the envy of the world, is primarily the result of all these hard-working immigrants seeking a better life than what they had in their native country.  Also, high levels of immigration could very well be the saving grace in the decades ahead for the U.S. as the Baby Boomers retire en masse.  If enough young workers are brought in (legally of course, so they can pay the taxes!), the labor pool could be kept high enough to balance out the ever-increasing payments to retirees.  If immigration were to be drastically reduced in the near future...we're headed for a whole lotta trouble.  ???

In closing, I must admit there is nothing like the extremely diverse U.S. economy that allows people to do almost anything they wish, including not working for a traditional employer (like me..lol)  Freelancing is becoming more common than ever, and small business are often set up as partnerships, to avoid the whole "employer / employee" thing.  The dream of achieving wealth is an ingrained philosphy here in America, which is continually reinforced by newcomers seeking the "American Dream."  The Australian "tall poppy sydrome" is not a very popular philosophy at all...indeed, achievement is very much a way of life here.  My feeling is that while all this is well and good, there are some things that need to be addressed, such as the rising cost of health care and workplace abuse by unscrupulous bosses.  The trick is not using a sledgehammer when a nail finisher is all really what is needed..LOL..which is what has apparently happened in Australia.   

B

Although no one knows for sure, the Martian ice caps are actually pretty thick...anywhere from 1 to 3 kilometers of maximum thickness by some estimates.  That's a lot of ice!  Also, the caps may actually cover a larger area than is apparently visible from orbiting satellites, as dust and sand have likely covered up huge expanses of ice around the perimeter of the ice caps over the eons.

As for shrinking the ice caps, yes, in the beginning of a terraforming effort, the caps would shrink, especially the southern one, as it consists partly of CO2.  However, as the atmosphere begins to thicken up and becomes wet, the average temperature of Mars would still be quite cold by Earth standards. This means that the newly released water would have a tendency to precipitate out at the poles as snow, making them bigger again.  In fact, if we're not careful, the poles would turn into giant glaciers and send sheets of ice towards the equator..creating a Martian ice age..!  Shaun made mention of that possibility a while back in another thread.

I guess one way to keep the polar ice caps in "check" is to spread some ice-loving black alge on the ice sheets during the summer months, which would melt back the ice accumulated during the previous winter.  The biggest thing about keeping Mars ecologically balanced is management of the oceans, as they would essentially regulate the climate of the entire planet.

B

I don't mean to be butting into anyone's debate here...just a couple of points I want to add...

One of the reasons I came up with my imaginary scenarios is to point out an important tendency of human nature...which is, whenever a person of importance or high influence is given the power to shape the future of a portion of the human race, they will use that power to play god, so to speak...like the idea of selecting the "brightest" of all society to found a utopian colony of Mars.

The sort of thing may sound good on paper, but would it work in practice?  Would it be possible to have a whole city filled with generals, but no grunts?  You often see huge debates whenever a few members of the intelligentsia get together for a beer or two...can you imagine what it'd be like to have 10,000 of them living together for the rest of their lives?!?...   ???   Not to mention the idea of attempting to create a so-called "super race..."   

But it is easy to imagine someone of great wealth and power attemting to pull something like this off...it's happened in the past, and there's no reason not to expect it in the future..

As for Settlement No.2...  A bit less than a year ago, I was in the Central American country of Guatemala..and I couldn't help but to notice the large number of Morman missionaries going out in their starched shirts and ties, fanning out into the remote contryside, converting people by the thousands to their religion.  Not that I have anything against them...but the thought of something like the Morman Church changing the long-held culture of other countries just for the sake of propagating a certain belief is a bit disconcerting to me.  It is not difficult to extrapolate the efforts of an extremely weathy organization, such as the Morman Church out to establishing a wholly new settlement on Mars...after all, it would no longer be a matter of converting others to your religion..but  creating a whole society of believers..which to me, anyhow, would be the ultimate goal of any religious body that seeks to pulgamate their belief system.

Whether this would be a bad thing or not...I'll leave it to others to answer that question...after all, the unique circumstances of ecking out an existence in such an unforgiving environment a la clark may very well be quite suited to a group of people who have totally dedicated their lives to serving the Lord.  They wouldn't be wasting their time attemping to make a profit, or try to make Mars into an exotic Disneyland...they would just focus on making it possible for many people as possible to be able to live on Mars...essentially creating their own Promised Land.  If a group of people like the Mormans are indeed able to pull something like that off...I say more power to them...

And now to settlement No. 3, which A.J. has so kindly renamed Golconda (thanks A.J., that name does sound so much better than Sharonov...     )  A lot of us Mars-fanatics are centered around the idea of a totally free-market type of community, after all, wouldn't it be like 18th/19th century America redux?  I must admit it it sounds good to my ears as well...

However...in light of how human society is structured today, in the 21st century, and the way it is trending towards the future...is is really reasonable to expect that it would even be possible to have that kind of a 'free frontier'?  Espcially on a place such as Mars, where literally everything has to be paid for...who's going to have the means to do that?  Certainly not people like you and me...or even the folks that happen to have a million or two at their disposal.  If a wholly private (as in $ private) community was indeed established on Mars, it would have to come from a enitity that has a lot of money to invest in this sort of venture...and yes, they will seek a return on that money, or they wouldn't bother with it in the first place. 

Without any outside governance (Mars is fair game to all, right?)...wouldn't not be too unreasonable to think that there might be a return to the days of indentured servitude?  Just think...Ares Corp agents fan out to 3rd world countries, promising people that a bright future awaits them on a whole new world.  They sign on the dotted line, are ferried to Mars...and guess what??....I'll leave it to you guys to imagine the wide range of possible outcomes for those souls....

Yes, robotics and machinery will be big on Mars...but people, especially slaves, will still be cheaper in many respects.  Robots are the most finicky creatures ever created...slaves on the other hand, just do what they need to in order to survive...

If we want to wait for the day when living in space/Mars is just another thought...well, it'll be a long time before that ever comes to pass...that's just reality, and there's not much we can do about that. 

Just thought I'd give you guys more to chew on around here...

B

Glad you brought this up, Cindy...

I have a quite colorful topgraphical globe of Mars I ordered from Sky and Telescope a while back...and it show quite clearly the high and low areas of the Red Planet.  Of course, the lowest areas are a deep blue, trending towards red for the highest elevations.  If one drew an imaginary line at the -2km elevation contour (the point where the blue areas begin), you can quite easily imagine a very large northern ocean covering close to 50% of the entire nothern hemisphere, plus the massive and very deep Hellas basin.  Of course no one knows if there is enough water to make an ocean that big, but just casually glancing at the globe, it is not difficult to imagine a Martian ocean being there at one time in the distant past...as smooth and flat as those 'blue' areas are, not to mention the apparent drainage basins leading into those areas, I would have to say there were oceans at one time in the distant past, and if that is indeed the case, there is no reason to think that terraformers couldn't restore Mars to its former, wet state.

Even with the large northern ocean and a flooded Hellas, most of Mars would still be dry land, and any land that is located between zero (mean elevation) and minus two kilometers (likely elevation of a past / future sea level) would surely the most desirable areas to live, as the air would the the thickest and warmest there, especially in the equatorial regions.  One thing I would ask of the terraformers, however, is to find some way to preserve the great Valles Marineris..it'd sure be a shame to see that magnificant valley get flooded out!  Perhaps a huge dam could be built at the eastern end of Marineris, leaving a nice, wide swath of dry land that extends up to five km below the datum, which would make it one of the first human-habitable areas if a terraforming effort was indeed undertaken.

As for people settling on Mars before any terraforming effort is undertaken, it'd probably be a good idea not to build a permanent settlement in the lower elevations of the northern hemisphere...as we all know, preventive measures tend to work the best in these type of situations! 

B

Thanks Shaun, for such an enlightening post!   

The things you've just said is a perfect example of how important it is to hear from all sides...and I do appreciate taking the time to explain how things *really* are in your fair land. 

To tell you the truth, we here in the U.S. are often shocked at some of the abuses of the court system as well...people will sue for anything if they think they have the slightest chance of winning...and some of them actually manage to pull it off, like the famous 'spilt coffee' case at the McDonald's drive-thru, not to mention the multi-billion dollar individual lawsuits against the cigerette companies.  Kinda makes me wish I had taken up smoking as a kid (!)

You see, when I went to Australia and New Zealand in the first half of 1986, I was a very impressionable 19-year old.  I saw both countries as a paradise...the workers had rights unheard of in the States, one didn't really have to worry about being unemployed or not, as the 'dole' was so generous...I didn't see any of the proverty and squalor like we had back home, I felt safe walking the streets at night, even felt safe hitchhiking, etc.  There seemed to be little of the unabashed greed and endess pursuits of wealth like we had back home in the 80's (and 90's)...and it seemed everywhere I went, the people were all just so happy.  Little wonder I wanted to come back to live...LOL... 

I must say there have some events in my personal life that has colored my perception of the current employer-employee system that is so prevalent in the Western world today.  For nearly five years, I worked for a local government agency as an urban planner...a fine, well paying job that I enjoyed..until Ms. B came along.  In the final 18 months of me working there, I went from a contented, productive employee to extreme dissatisfaction near the end.  The simple fact of the matter was, Ms. B and I just didn't get along.  Maybe she had a thing about my intelligence..after all, I was always coming up with new ideas, seeking new challenges in my job, etc..so I guess she felt "threatened" or whatever.  Anyhow, to make a long story short, Ms. B simply made my life hell.  She couldn't fire me (civil service protection), but she did slap duties on me that were an insult to my skills and intelligence, and she constantly chewed me out for the most trivial of things.  In the final days, it was war, pure and simple, and I simply rebelled.  I called in sick all the time, refused to do her bidding, etc. 

Of course, when I finally bailed, and started looking for other jobs in my field, I soon found out I was effectively blacklisted in my local community, and all my job-hunting efforts were for naught.  At one point, I just threw up my hands and promised myself I would never work for another person again...bosses were, after all, mean, cruel people who used people only to further their own personal objectives.  I know this is an irrational way of thinking...but who ever said that people were completely rational beings?

Yes, it's been a long, hard road in the past 4 years...I've managed to sustain myself by doing odd jobs for people, etc, and these days I currently do a bit of website and graphic design freelancing.  I'm also currently working on a couple of projects with a dear friend of mine in L.A. (thank god for those cheap coast-to-coast flights!) that have to do with the entertainment industry, but only time will tell if that will pan out...you know how that sort of thing goes...lol.  But I've survived also through the generosity of my family and others, as well as just not spending any money if I don't have to..lol..I guess I'd rather be poor and free, rather than be a rich slave...lol.  I must say that I'm quite satisfied at not having to go to a regular job everyday, and I'm free to take advantage of extremely low airfares in the U.S. to visit my widely scattered friends around the country...something else I wouldn't be able to do if I had a job.

So the lack of security...not knowing where my next paycheck is going to come from, etc...it does makes me pine for places such as Australia from time to time, where there's more 'security' to be had.  Everyone likes to be secure, it seems, which is why I don't think a 100% 'free-market' solution would ever really work, here on Earth or anywhere else.  Also, the stock market crash and the multitude of corporate scandals in the past couple of years in the U.S. has shaken my belief in the capitalistic system..after all, during the go-go '90's, the days of economic malaise were supposed to be over, the market was supposed to climb forever, paychecks would always get fatter...yeah, right.  To see all these wonderful things crumble before my very eyes has been a tough break...I just feel like our leaders just don't care about the individual at all anymore, only about corporate profits and oil and war, etc. 

To sum things up, the combination of my personal experiences and the current state of affairs do color my thinking about things...and I constanly flip-flop back and forth about what kind of socio-economic system works best...and to tell you the truth..nothing really ever 'works'...people just have to make the best of whatever situation is at hand, and somehow we manage to muddle through and make the best of things in the end...

B

Good post, Pat.  While I do pretty much agree with your statements that the only way to have 100% rational decision-making is to have a 100% free-market type of situation...I do not think this is a realistic scenario for an early Martian settlement, for the simple reason that someone(s) is/are going to have to pay for the establishment of the settlement in the first place.  And yes, they will have political objectives and exercise some degree of control over the new settlement (how big will it be?  What kind of structure will be built?, etc).  Even if a group of uber-millionaires got together and funded their own Martian colony, the local economy will be too small and rough-edged to ensure the safety of its residents on a wholly free-market system...there would have to be some sort of central agency to make certain enough air/water/food is produced to avoid any kind of life-threatening problem, and yes, the vast majority of people are willing to trade liberty for security, whether its actually warranted or not.

B