New Mars Forums

This is the introduction to a series of threads for discussion of the Martian Constitution proposed by Kim Stanley Robinson. While the constitution is hardly by any means written democratically, and also some might question the need for a global government with constitution, it nevertheless serves as an interesting discussion point for the idea of Martian governments in general.

I'm not going to reproduce the Constitution in full here as that would violate copyright. If you would like to view the original Constitution text, buy a copy of The Martians by KSR; it's not expensive and I thought the book was excellent reading. I may approach KSR about reproducing the text for the purposes of discussion here but I'm not optimistic about him saying yes and I can't say I really want to ask in the first place.

KSR's Constitution should be viewed in the fictional setting of when it was written, shortly after the second revolution against Earth by Martian colonists and the need for a consensus (or compromise, as some might argue) between the pro and anti-terraforming factions of the colonists. It was also written in a world which was significantly different from ours where settlements had high levels of independence and self-sufficiency - through necessity - and where the 'Martian Underground' was fearful of too much corporate and governmental influence in their affairs (which was arguably the cause of all the troubles, but let's not go into that).

Therefore, it's extremely useful, but not essential, for discussion participants to be familiar with the history of the events in KSR's Mars Trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) - again, these are excellent books and multiple award winners. Unlike the Constitution, I have absolutely no intention of summarising the events in the trilogy and if you want to read one I'm sure there are places on the Internet where you can find them.

Finally, along with the text of the Constitution, KSR also wrote a commentary on the Constitution in the guise of a contemporary historian and political scientist, Charlotte Dorsa Brevia. Her notes on the Constitution are valuable reading as they provide insight into the thoughts of observers at the time, and also serve to explain the reasoning behind some of the Constitution Articles (which I believe she had a hand in writing).

The various Articles of the Constitution will be discussed in separate threads for the interests of organisation but it is inevitable that there will be some cross-referencing among those threads - I'd simply ask you to keep it down to a minimum and if appropriate start a new thread.

What I'm hoping will come out of these discussions is not some 'new and improved Constitution' but an increased understanding of our own individual positions on a hypothetical Martian government, and a recognition of areas which require more discussion. From there, it's hard to say where we'll go; however, I don't think it's impossible for us to make a good analysis of the issues that the future Constitution framers will face.

Well, that would explain it then, wouldn't it? j/k

But seriously, yes, I can imagine how frustrating it must be to have seen the first and land moon landings of the 20th century. Believe me, I've read enough hard SF by people like Baxter to have a good appreciation of what we could have achieved.

However, the Apollo Programme was by all accounts one #### of an expensive project, never mind all the lucrative spinoffs and science. And let's face it, it didn't really do that much, did it? Flag and footprints and all that.

What I would have liked to have seen during the 80s and 90s was the development of a second generation Shuttle which would have reduced costs significantly. Maybe not tenfold, but by enough to, say, at least triple Shuttle operations and to reduce turnaround time. We should be developing a third generation RLV by now.

I forget what exactly was the point of this post now because I've spent the last four hours writing in (in between I had a phone call) but I think you see what I mean.

Yes, I thought someone would bring that up. What happened today with the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the other plane crash is absolutely horrifying.

However - and it may be hard to believe this - I still think things are improving. It is immensely heartening to see the universal condemnation of the terrorists from countries all over the world, and it is absolutely essential to remember that this act of terrorism was conducted not by a state but by a small group of fanatics who do not reflect upon their nation or religion.

This was clearly an act of mindless terrorism and the world has sadly always had its terrorists.

I really don't know what to say about this, but my belief and hope in humanity remains steady.

I don't believe that Russia and China pose zero threat to, say, America, but by all accounts that threat is nowhere near as large as it was fifty or even thirty years ago. The huge amount of trade flowing around the world would make it, well, just unprofitable to have a war these days. Not that nations have always acted rationally, but even so, any historian would agree that relations between Russia, China and America have hugely improved in recent decades.

As for the lack of resources, it's a common misconception that we're about to run out any time soon. It's been shown that the dire predictions of no oil in a few decades and global warming aren't quite as accurate as people would have you believe.

The industrialisation of China does pose a problem but I was pleased to note that over the last few years they actually managed to significantly reduce their pollution production while their GDP increased; quite an admirable feat which many people aren't aware of. Indeed, it's thought that China's pollution production will not exceed America's for at least another thirty years.

Now, I will concede that multinats do have a huge amount of power and influence. I do think that there is some hope for increased democratisation of this power though, through schemes like open source software and so on.

So, I'm the last person to say that things are perfect on Earth - after all, we haven't gotten to Mars yet! But I do think that things are definitely improving.

Having still not read the article, I can't comment on the content reliably. However, I imagine that New Scientist's criticisms are probably based on the apparent 'lack of professionalism' that they might perceive at F-MARS; they talk about the hab being like a student dorm (e.g. not like what it'd be on Mars; not organised). They will probably also pick at the lack of standards, protocols and other NASA-like features that the media associates with 'good' space research.

I think the problem here is that there is a bit of a misunderstanding on NS' part of exactly what FMARS is here for. As I understand it, it isn't supposed to simulate a Martian expedition, as such, but merely to test technologies and procedures.

I hear that New Scientist has run a feature on the FMARS in Devon Island - I haven't read it myself but I've been told that the overall tone is rather critical of the scientific value of the Station. A friend who has read the article commented:

"Comments [in the article] about the hab resembling a student dorm and journalists whinging about having to wait for simulated airlock cycling and acclimatization before getting their photo opportunities were unnecessary."

Has anyone else read this article? It isn't available on their website until next week (I'll post a link when it's there). I should point out that in general, New Scientist probably doesn't have a high opinion of space research in general - this might be justified or it might not be, but that's how it goes.