New Mars Forums

This is exactly what was on my mind when I initiated this thread...the idea of having kids on a research base with Mars Direct-style huts is terrifying to say the least, and I sincerely hope that kind of situation will be avoided. 

While many of us are attracted to the idea of Martian children...the reality of Mars' environment means that they will have to wait until a "suitable" infrastructure is put into place, and that may take a while...

B

Hey...

If the Mars Direct spacecraft have no artificial gravity (rotating using a tether system), then there would be no way the travelers could "lay" down on a bed, as there would be no "downward" pressure to make this possible (unless webbed material is used to "strap" into a bed.  Instead, they would probably do what is done on the Space Shuttle and ISS currently...sleep in webbed sleeping "bags" attached to the ceiling and floor in an upright fashion (to save on space). 

Sleep is not easy to come by in microgravity...I think most astronauts sleep less than 6 hours per night.  However, on Mars, there is enough gravity to make sleeping in beds practical, and indeed, sleeping in .38 g should be more comfortable than a full g, although we won't know until we get there...lol..

B

TioRay...I really wish you wouldn't disparage Adrian (or anyone else on this board, for that matter) in this way...I, for one, think his title of "Super Administrator" is well-deserving, as he has done a "super" job of making the New Mars Forum into what it is today...

After all, Adrian is the founder and webmaster of this board...his privilage has been earned, NOT "granted" as you seem to think...

Byron

LOLOL....you gotta love that one...    This is a PRIME example of why the principle of "Occam's Razor" (simplest solution is often the best) needs to be kept at the forefront of human endeavor....

B

I clearly understand that human values are not "objective" and therefore cannot be measured as such, but this doesn't mean we can ignore the "subjective" things, either.  In Cindy's example of a patient's visit to a doctor, the doctor must rely on the patient to tell him what is "bad"...this by itself does not give him the information he/she needs to make a proper dianogsis...BUT...the doctor does use these "subjective" values of the patient ("my stomach hurts really, really bad") as a GUIDE to search for the objective parameters of the patient's condition, which consists of observations such as temperature, visible symptoms, etc.  Without the "subjective" values of the patient (stomach hurting), the doctor wouldn't be able to determine what is actually wrong with the patient, as the patient most likely wouldn't have taken the action of going there in the first place...lol.

This is the gist of what I've trying to illustrate in my previous posts...  Although there can be no way of objectively measuring of "good" and "bad,"  they certainly give us guidelines concerning the things that are objective, such as the preservation of life.  Clark's hypothesis that reproduction regulation would be necessary on Mars is just that, a hpothesis..it cannot be measured until we actually have a Martian colony, complete with children and all.  (Actually, we would need two colonies, one with child regulation, the other not.)  Then we will know, i.e., we will have objective data on whether regulation is indeed necessary.  But until that happens, the only tool that is available to us is ...you guessed it, subjective "values" of what you or I think might happen under those circumstances.

I love logical and objective methodology...it can and should be used whenever and wherever possible...as there's no way one can go "wrong" with this approach.  But unfortunately, this does not represent the whole realm of human existence, and there is no escaping the use of so-called arbitrary values...otherwise, how can one make any sort of "hypothesis" (whatever this may be) to begin with?  How can we "determine" what steps Society should take to ensure its own survival and so forth?  After all, any action we take today affects what happens tomorrow...but we never know until we get to tomorrow...so the actions taken today are based on subjective thought on what we think WILL happen...but, of course, since it is subjective, there is no guarantee of anything...  But this is something that *can't* be avoided, as we never have all the "objective" answers in front of us to begin with...

One cannot live by logic alone...

B

First of all, let me start out by making a statement, and asking and answering the questions that follow:  "Life has Intrinsic Value," i.e., the value of life is absolute.  But how is "life" defined?  Any biological organism capable of self-sustainment and reproduction.  But the definition of "life" doesn't end there.  What about "intelligent" life, e.g., the human race?  Considering how humans are capable of far more than mere self-sustainment and reproduction, might this form of "life" be defined as something like "life to the nth power"? After all, before there were people, Nature simply went about its merry way of endless cycles of creation and destruction (life and death), and there was no one around to know or care.  Then came along homo sapiens, and lo and behold, life gained "intrinsic value," for the reason that we are intelligent, self-aware creatures capable of realizing this in the first place.  So indeed, something was created that didn't exist before: the very notion of "value" and "life" itself.

Let me continue this line of thought a bit further.  When homo sapiens began realizing that life did have this intrinsic value, something else followed...the creation of society.  This was when people began living together for the purpose of making it "easier" to live.  By living in cooperation, surplus food could be produced to stave off famine, shelter could be provided to protect against the elements, ad infintum.  But in order to this to take place, something else had to be "created."  This "creation" was a system of "values" that defined the parameters of whatever society that group of people happened to live in.  This is where logic and objective thought is left behind, and human thought relies on something else, which the role of religion, philosophy, government, etc. comes in.  Why?  To establish a set of parameters for people to live by that will allow the "society" to not only sustain itself, but to progress to something more; to make life "better," i.e., progress. 

Granted, we are getting into subjective territory here, but isn't that what the very act of human thinking involves?  Sure, we understand such concepts as mathematics and science...things that just are, like the value of pi and 2+2=4.  But there is so much more to human life (life to the nth power, again) than objective constructs.  There is no getting away from the fact that the human brain is a biological object that creates "feelings" that define the world from our individual viewpoints....although all this is indeed subjective and cannot be measured in any objective manner, it is nethertheless *there*; it is an integeral part of the human condition, and without "feeling" or "conscious thought," human life would be just that, just life (life without value), not the privilaged "life to the nth power" (life with value) that we enjoy.  After all, if the one and only "absolute value" in the realm of existence is the inherent value of life itself...isn't this still not the result of human "thought"?  Therefore, recognizing that life has value means that we define life as "good" and conversely, we define anti-life (death) as "bad." 

But life (human life) is more than simply being alive and dead.  Human life represents the entirety of human civilization and society, with all the aggregate "values" of individuals coming together to define "society."  Society represents a great deal more than merely sustaining life; it is the mechanism that allows the human race to achieve successively higher levels of thought, and consquently, a higher standard of living.  Take the United States for example...people got together define a set of values, in addition to life itself..indeed the concept of "happiness" was defined as a "value" to preserve and protect.  From these "values" flowed the actions of this group of people to build what we have today...a society capable of sustaining a whole lot more "life" than 225 years ago. (Our huge population is a good objective measurement)  By defining what is "good" and what is "bad", this is what enables people to do more than just "live," like animals and plants do...indeed this is the "thing" (what cannot be objectively defined) that makes us who we are...the recognition of something that not really "there". (subjective values.)

Clark, before you get yourself into a snit, please bear with me a bit longer...  One might ask how can something that not really "there" effect what IS there?  Plenty.  By us humans recogizing these emphreal "values" as a part of the human condition, this has served as the "mechanism" to base our whole society upon.  After all, "Society" is simply a set of definations of how to live for maximum benefit...and this is something that flows from the individuals of that society...essentially it is the "sum" of these individual values that are then "averaged" to form the whole of society itself.

Admittally, these human "values" do not always follow the basic rules of logic and reason...indeed that is the greatest challenge of the human race...defining the values that are "good" or "bad"...these definitions do change depending on the particular context they are drawn from, and humans, for the most part, are NOT rational, logical beings...because the human brain is not a computer filled with on and off switches.  This is why it is impossible to have a completely rational, objective government, court, or whatever "neutral third party" that Clark likes to invoke on occassion.  These are still made up of *people* with their feelings and emotions and values that are certainly not based on scientific or mathematic principles.  Otherwise, we would all be living in Utopia, and we wouldn't be having these debates on New Mars...lol 

But I want to close by referring back to Clark's statement about "actions" not having "absolute value."  If there is one thing that we can agree that IS absolute...Life has Value...than we are able to define this as "good." That is objective as it gets, agree?  Then conversely, the end of Life has to carry the defination of "bad", as bad is the opposite of good.  Flowing from these two statements, we would have to say that any action that sustains life is good (rain is "good", without it, we would die,) and any action that ends life in some fashion is bad.  This is a simple, logical rational deduction, comprende?  Therefore the action of murder (I'm talking about cold-blooded murder here, NOT self-defense, etc) is defined as "bad," and the person that commits that murder is considered "bad."  A Life has been terminated, a violation of the one absolute, objective value that provides the bedrock of the whole human thought process.  So yes, that "action" has "absolute value," as it destroyed the one thing that does have absolute value, the Intrinsic Value of Life.  So how is it then, that the act of committing a murder is not "bad"?  That, Clark, is the basic flaw in your logic...we can reduce and reduce, but the logic train has to come to a stop somewhere, and the very notion of "Life Has Value" is the dividing line between where logic ends and the mysterious realm of human thought begins...which is the thing that makes us "human," not just some random cluster of atoms in this particular corner of the universe...

'nuff said....

B

How about this...the best Martian *calendar*.  The one that makes the most sense and is the most "practical" wins...

I really like the time capsule idea, though, as it could contain so many of our activities that we may carry out now (artwork, musings, the other suggestions people have mentioned in this tread, perhaps even the first year of everything transcribed here on New Mars..LOL).  It would be so much fun to crack that thing open to see what we were thinking about "back then" when "First Landing" does take place.

B

Hey,

Another place you'd might like to check out concerning Martian housing and the like is in the "Civilization and Culture" forum, in the Dorsa Brevia section, under the topic heading of 'Architecture on Mars'....

B

I second this notion.  I think voluntary euthanasia should be a part of every Martian settler's rights on Mars...

B

Very well met, indeed, Clark...

I think many of our differences are related to different models of future Martian habitation / settlement, which I'll explain later.  Anyhow...

The point I was making was taking into consideration the health risks for children born and raised on Mars in the low gravity, lifetime exposure to high levels of raditiation, etc; these risks would probably be tolerable for people coming to Mars during adulthood, especially if they go back to Earth after a certain period of time, but not for raising children.  I don't think many people would disagree with the fact that a great deal of research would have to take place on Mars before having children is a reasonable option to take, so in the early days of Mars settlement, having children really wouldn't be an option.  It would be like putting the cart before the horse... So yes, I do concede that at least in the early going, reproduction would have to be restricted or regulated, especially if the settlement is a government-funded base like Antartica.  I do not think that having children would be appropriate in that kind of setting, and I wouldn't think it would that big of an issue if these "settlers" had to agree in a contract or whatever before coming to Mars that they would not attempt to have children during their tenure on Mars.

NB:  The viewpoint I'm angling from is the model of a "independently" founded colony or settlement, in which the primary goal is to establish an ongoing, multigenerational existance on Mars, growing over time like frontier settlements in the past.  This would probably take place well after the initital publicy-funded missions have taken place and research bases are established (up to a century later, perhaps?) and after the potential colonists have a firm grip on resource location/extraction, as well as procuring a reliable, "cheap" energy source that would enable the support of a constantly growing community.

By "feasible" I mean when a signficant piece of infrastructure has been put in place, such as a full-scale dome capable of accomodating a significant number of people that haven't "arrived" yet, whether it be by birth or immigration.  At this point, a suitable environment would have been created for having children, hence the first generation of "true-red" Martians would be born.  As for deciding for who gets to "decide," what makes you think that some sort of "central authority" would be more rational than the individuals themselves?  The people in power may not want people to have children (due to the fact they may not want kids themselves, or don't want to see the colony's resources devoted to raising children), although environmental conditions may permit it, and then you'l have serious dissention within the community.  That would be bad.  Imagine a desperate parent-to-be allowing all the crops in the greenhouses to freeze because they can't abide by the "unreasonable" reproductive laws that are being enforced upon them.  Worse yet, the colony's leaders could be real child fanatics and ends up directing the citizenry to have too many kids, too fast.  Best to establish some sort of free-market system, and let the people decide for themselves when it's best to have babies based on how much it "costs" to have them.  Remember that having children is an ingrained instinct, however irrational it may be; and if we are talking about people making a *permanent* move to Mars to make a new life like colonists in the past, they WILL have kids sooner or later.  A permanent colony will not be able to escape the fact people want to have families, however "inefficient" this may be.  That is just the way it is with people... 

If you're looking at this from the "Antarctic" model, I agree with you 100%.  In the early going, people need to be able to come and go at will, and yes, having any children at all would greatly complicate matters.  At some point, however, a permanent community will likely be established (provided that the human race continues to advance technology-wise in this regard), and the time will eventually come when the first children will be born on Mars. 

Good point here.  As long as we are talking about small-scale developments (<10,000 people), establishing an adaptable infrastructure to cope with varying numbers of different-aged children will indeed be problematic.  But at this point, I think it's useful to consider the fact that if they've made it this far (creating a hospitable environment in order to have children in the first place), that making accomodations for 10 8-year-olds, and so on, really shouldn't be such a difficult task as opposed to all the other things that would have to be performed to carve out an existence on Mars.  When it comes to kids, parents will do "whatever it takes" to provide for their children.  However, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the colonists could end up agreeing in a democratic fashion to regulate the times when to have their kids...if this makes things easier as a whole, and they agree to it; I don't see this being a problem as long this is carried out in a reasonable, logical manner.  Here on Earth, central "authorities" have a poor record in doing things in a reasonable fashion, so again, my opinion is to leave it up to the colonists themselves.  This situation represents one of the rare circumstances in which "pure" democracy would be applicable, and while I do concede that the people could vote to pull the plug on having kids in the first place, I see this possibility as being extremely *unlikely*, and the most you'll probably see in the realm of reproductive control is the timing of when to have kids.  As for the fact that the new generation of children being "unproductive," I think this is the ultimate price that the child-bearers, and indeed, the community as a whole will be more than willing to pay.  That's how's it's been done for 1000's of years, and I don't see this being radically different on Mars.  Another way of looking at this, is that the "true-reds" will be surely pushed far harder than their peers back on Earth for reasons of necessity.  Instead of 30 years to reach full productivity, I say they'll make it there in 20.  Native-borns won't moan and groan about how much they miss "the green hills of Earth," etc, etc; and in the long run, I think that the natives will produce more in their lifetimes on Mars than immigrants from Earth.  Just because an Earth immigrant has a "proven track record" doesn't mean he or she will do well on Mars.  They might end up hating it so much that they become depressed and unproductive, and have to return home in short order, which wouldn't very efficient, either.

Again, we're looking at this from different viewpoints here.  Nobody in their right mind would want to have a kid during the "tin-can" stage.  That will come when the first large-scale dome or equivalently enclosed habitat is built, trees and grass and all.  Big difference there..lol.

Yes, when my hypothetical first permanent colony is in the process of being built, I would say that some sort of general consensus would have to come about to determine when the intitial "go-ahead" will be given to begin having kids, and if it comes to the actual survival of the settlers, yes, I concede that reproductive regulation may be necessary.  However, I'm looking at it from a temporary standpoint (think: food rations during WWII), and as soon as conditions permit, the decision to have kids would be turned over to the populace (returning to a free market at the conclusion of WWII.)  At least that is what I think will make the most sense in a rational, logical manner.  Let the "mothering" types have the most kids, and leave the "no-kids" types do whatever they came to Mars to do in the first place.  Freedom is an important element in any rapidly growing/developing society, and I don't see why this should be any different on Mars.  I really don't see our colonists breeding themselves into a malthusian meltdown, imho.  I sincerely hope our future Martians would be smart enough to avoid that kind of scenario. 

'Nuff said...for now...

B

Thanks Cindy, for duplicating your previous post concerning Martian kids to this thread....

I think we can all pretty much agree that raising children on Mars will be one of the biggest challenges facing the new settlers from Earth.  For this reason, I would hope the new colonists would hold off having any children until the population of their community reaches a certain minimum level, perhaps a 1000 or so (the greater the number, the better) to better cater to the children's needs within the new settlement. 

I know many people are against the idea of genetic programming / engineering here on Earth, lest we create a "superior" race, a la Hitler, but on Mars, it may very well be a necessity in order to circumvent such problems Cindy has mentioned, such as lactose intolerance.  A child born with a disability or chronic illness such as asthma here on Earth has a reasonable expection of living a normal life, due to the great amount of resources we have available to us (at least in such places as the U.S., Europe and Australia.)  But the same child on Mars would be facing a world of woe, as it will be a hundred times more difficult to provide for him or her.  Importing things such as medical specialists and an endless variety of drugs, supplies, etc, from Earth will be very costly at best, impossible at worst.  For this reason, it would behoove the new settlers to take whatever steps possible to "engineer" healthy children in order to mitigate these difficulties as much as possible.

As for other weighty matters such as diapers and clothing for rapidly growing children...again, I think technology will be called upon to provide the solution, as well as the tried-and-true measures of just doing "without."  Things such as clothing manufacture and laundering will most likely be carried out by machines, and as far as shoes/boots are concerned...why not just have the kids go barefoot?  (Go ahead and laugh..I don't mind    )  Making shoes is actually a very labor-consuming task, one that will be difficult, if not impossible for machines to perform, and therefore footwear would have to be imported from Earth, again at great expense.  (Can you imagine paying a $1000 or more for a pair of shoes that your kid will outgrow in six months or less??  I'm sorry, but my kids can just go barefoot..LOL.)  Having a cobbler would be nice...but I just don't see the community being able to spare that kind of labor, when everyone is so busy with things such as growing food and environmental control...

Cindy's concerns of children being exposed to tales of growing up on Earth and feeling resentment as a result are perfectly valid ones...especially when it comes to things such as sports and just runnng around outside  ???   The idea of "kiddie suits" for the kids to go outside...forget it...suits will be so expensive that making them all the different sizes you would need for children would be simply impractical, at least for people less than, let's say 5 feet tall.  This is why I sincerely hope that a decent-sized dome is constructed before they start having babies...kids are by their nature quite rambunctious, and the fact that they will never be able to go outside will be quite troublesome, imo. (This goes for adults too...people do need their open space.)

However, there is a flip side to looking at this.  Just think of all the things that Martian children will be able to do in their native habitat due to the .38 g.  After all, the low g will make everyone a "superman," able to perform physical feats that Earth kids can only dream of doing.  Build a decent-sized halfpipe for young skateboarders, and just watch them perform astonishing feats of aerial acrobatics...perhaps the Martian kids will then consider themselves "privilaged" to live in Martian g, as opposed to living in the crushing gravity of Earth.  Pools will be a must, for sure, as they wouldn't take up much space, and will provide a venue for critical excercise and physical development for the young ones, as well as adults.

I could go on and on here, but I'll leave it up to you guys to comment further on this important topic...

B

In regards to other threads dealing with the topic of children growing up on Mars, I've been wondering what it will be like for a child to be born and raised on Mars.

I think the biggest concern is the .38 g and how it will affect children's physiological development.  Many scientists tend to believe that Martian g is a fairly safe and healthy g for Earth people to live in, but at this point, it's virtually impossible to determine what adverse effects, if any, the lower gravity will have on Martian children's health as they grow towards adulthood.  We do know that bones and muscles develop according to the amount of stress placed upon them, so it would be reasonable to assume that without the weighted infant suits that Cindy mentioned in another thread, that weaker bones and muscles would result, perhaps leading to such maladies such as childhood osteoporosis  ???

But I hate the thought of those poor babies and young children having to wear those bulky, uncomfortable suits all the time, as a significant amount of material would have to be used to make up the weight difference. (Even lead would be light on Mars!)  One idea I've thought of to cope with this, is to simply make the Martian children bigger, and consequently more massive, and a good deal of gravity-related problems could be avoided as a result.

Go ahead and laugh if you'd like     But, seriously, folks, KSR brought up the idea of uber-sized Martians, especially after the third or forth generation or so.  I think his hypothesis was that the low gravity allowed children to grow large without outside intervention, which is a reasonable thought.  But I think what is more likely to happen would be the "beanstalk syndrome," in which children would be very thin and spindly, with brittle bones and underdeveloped muscles.  On the other hand, if the growth of babies and tottlers were to be greatly accelerated through the use of genetic programming and on-going growth treatments, the body mass of children could be increased to mitigate the effects of the lower Martian g.  If a Martian 4-year old were as large as, let's say, an Earthling 10-year old, the extra mass would compensate for the lower downward pull of gravity, and the child's physical development would theoretically be healthier and more "normal" as a result.  Of course, tall Martian children would result in tall Martian adults, perhaps one-fourth to one-third taller than typical earthlings, but at least they'd be healthier Martians..LOL. 

In addition, an extra calcium-rich diet would probably be par for the course, as well as rigorous excercise programs for them.  Gotta keep those little ones busy  , lest they get into trouble...

Anyhow, it's just a thought...what are your ideas about children in the .38 g of Mars?

B