New Mars Forums

Good point about the perimeter movement detectors. As long as nobody can hack the security program, your colony would be protected against infiltration by Special Forces-type units.

A very effective manner of attacking an adversary's Martian colonies was discussed in Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars Trilogy". Sabotaging a habitat's atmospheric scrubbers (and hacking its environmental control computers) might allow you to incapacitate (or even kill) most of the colonists, while leaving almost all of the costly and intricate life support infrastructure completely undamaged. Even a neutron warhead does nasty stuff to metal, so I've heard.

Perhaps groups of expert computer hackers and stealthy 'Black Ops' soldiers could form the backbone of future Martian surface warfighting capabilities.

A surprise attack from an adversary's space-based assets is always possible. A colonial government might also be wise to invest in a system capable of striking enemy cities, even if its entire populace has been killed or incapacitated.

As an admirer of the best of Classical civilization, I'd love to see Neo-Roman architecture enjoy a revival. Using native materials, and building designs adapted to .38g, architects could bring the same larger-than-life sensibility to Mars. Not that I want every city to look like the set of "Gladiator" (Rome Under A Dome), of course. I'm just not a big fan of modern skyscrapers. They seem too functional and unromantic to me, almost soulless. I also love bright, splashy colors.

I'm sure Martians would agree. Any color you want, just not that same shade of red.

I believe that the first priority of Martian colonists should be to ensure the long-term survival of their civilization, by relentlessly expanding the resource extraction and materials processing sectors of their economy.

Terraforming should be done, in my opinion, because it improves the economic potential of Mars. But it is only one of Society's many needs. Educating children, providing for the needs of the elderly, maintaining a strong military, and terraforming (to say nothing of foreign aid and other things) will all claim a slice of the budgetary pie. Contrary to Kim Stanley Robinson's wonderful books, I truly doubt that Earth governments will foot the bill for terraforming. Different Martian settlements will have to decide how much or little they wish to contribute.

I have always loved airships...so I was thrilled to see the dirigible story in "Red Mars".

Another cool site regarding solar sails:

Space Sailing

If you could colonize a Near-Earth Object, preferably a burnt-out comet core or suchlike, moving it into orbit around Venus would allow you to harvest the Venusian atmosphere for volatiles. Using robotic, nuclear-powered ramjet tankers (like Zubrin's NIFT vehicles from his book "Entering Space"), colonists could skim the upper atmosphere for valuable materials.

A viable proposition? Anyone's guess. I'd thought of it myself years back, so it was cool to see asteroid colonists in Venusian space in KSR's "Blue Mars".   

The idea of Monarchy seemed very romantic to me, but Clark made some very compelling arguments against it.

Definitely not as good of an idea as I'd thought.

The problem is that human nature favors hierarchy. Public ownership of most things is a nice idea, but the reality will eventually become what is ALWAYS found in Communist societies.

A small group of self-appointed guardians of the state, like the pigs of Orwell's "Animal Farm", will eventually become a hereditary ruling class intent on preserving its own power.

At least Capitalistic societies founded on democratic principles offer more opportunities to reward hard work and ingenuity.

I wish future Martian Commies (Double Reds?)  well. But they would have to avoid the pitfalls that doomed every other Communist experiment here on Earth...without becoming a hellish dystopia.

Tough gig.

Clark, those were great responses!

I have always had a soft spot for monarchy, partly because it so conservative by nature. Strong monarchy, while institutionalizing class distinctions, would also be a protection against would-be social engineers.

Another point in favor of monarchy relates to the cohesiveness of society. Shall our new Martian society be a mosaic or a melting pot? If it's to become a melting pot, then someone's going to be pressured to surrender much of their cultural identity...and they might be very unhappy about it. If instead it becomes a mosaic, what becomes the focus of loyalty? It can't be the dominant ethnic group or language...there probably wouldn't be one. Here in the USA, our allegiance is to the Constitution. But our own Civil War proves that in times of great societal upheaval, the allegiance to ideas written on a piece of paper are often not as strong as the personal bonds of loyalty between men.

A mosaic paradigm of society would be at a disadvantage when its disparate elements begin to see each other as enemies (Yugoslavia, anyone?). Even in the USA, we swear loyalty to the Constitution, but almost every citizen speaks English. What happens that's no longer the case?

Your case against monarchy is somewhat compelling. Perhaps I'd be more satisfied with an elected Chief Executive who serves a decade-long term of office, so they can make plans for more than 4 years in advance. Plus enough pomp and ceremony to make the House of Windsor jealous.

Double post. My bad.