Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

Byron · 2002-11-09 08:05:35

In light of some of the discussions that have taking place recently in the "free chat" section, I'd thought I'd throw out something else to talk about

The following is a purely 'hypothetical' scenario taking place in the future, involving three separate human colonies being established on Mars at approximately at the same time. I will describe each 'community' in turn, and I'd like to ask if you could comment on the pros and cons of each of the three so-called m-cities...

Well, here goes...I hope I don't burn anyone's eyes out for having all this text on the computer screen..lol..

Setting: The year is 2055. Humans have been exploring Mars more or less continuously for 25 years now, and there is a currently a small, internationally funded research base on Mars that is 15 years old. Like some of the bases in Antarctica, the residents come and go in rotation...it is NOT a 'bona-fide' community by any stretch...children have yet to be born on Mars, and with many of the research objectives finally accomplished, there is even talk of shutting the base down.

However, the discoveries of the scientists and researchers on Mars are legion...while no evidence of life has been discovered, Mars has found to be an even more dynamic world than we could have ever imagined, and there is enough water under the surface to fill up entire oceans. The mineral resources on Mars are astounding, and all the 'building blocks' for building a new human civilization are easily accessible in various locations on the planet. Meanwhile, tremendous advances in propulsion technology have reduced the cost of space travel by a 1000-fold, and it is now possible to ferry large numbers of people to Mars in as little as six weeks.

In reponse to world-wide popular demand, the International Space Organization makes an official declaration that Mars is now open for development...and the door to the new frontier is now open, as long as nations here on Earth do not establish so-called "colonies" on Mars...all attempts to establish communities on Mars must be 'privately' funded. Other than that one restriction, the door to the new frontier is officially open...and "Mars Mania" sweeps the globe in the late '50's and early '60's.

In a decade's time, three separate 'attempts' are made to establish a human beachhead on the Red Planet, and Boeing and Airbus Industries team up together to meet the heavy demand for massive Earth-to-Mars ships. The share prices of those two corporations soar through the roof...

The first of the three new settlements on Mars is called Mariner, and is located on the floor of the magnificant Valles Marineris. Mariner has come about from the efforts of an uber-billionaire who wishes to establish a human Utopia on Mars, and leaves a staggering amount of cash to fund this effort. 10,000 people from around the world are carefully selected to found this settlement, with more to come later, and they have been culled from the very best of what the human race has to offer. Although a great number of nationalities, races, religions, ages, etc are included in the mix, the founding members of Mariner all have one thing in common: They all come from the top 1/2 of 1% of the range of human intelligence, their genetic make-up have been screened for any propensity to diseases, etc, and they all had to pass the most rigorous battery of psyschological tests ever devised by man. Out of 100,000,000 applicants, only 10,000 get to go to Mars...and they all go within a few years of each other with one goal in mind...to construct a huge, transperent dome capable of holding 100,000 people.

The method of governance in Mariner is based on a Swiss-style democracy, with each citizen taking an active role in the day-to-day operation of their new city, as well as long-term planning. The economy is highly socialistic in nature, and essentially the whole city is one giant co-op. Everyone has an equal share of the resources of the city, but everyone is also expected to contribute their labor as well...any 'deviation' from this results in the heavy 'sanctioning' of that individual (public scorn and the like). People are allowed to have as many children as they wish, but only after they go through "committee" to make certain that the new parents will be able to provide for that child in a "proper manner," as determined by the community at large, as well as whether there's an 'appropiate" number of babies being born at any given time.

***
The second, and most controversial, of the three new settlements on Mars is called Land of Mormon, located in the northeastern portion of Hellas. The Morman Church has collectively decided that they have a devine mission to accomplish: Populate a whole new world with people that count: the Mormans, of course. The Mormon Church in the 2050's is one of the most wealthy organizations in existence, and a huge "Martian Fund" is established to found this new colony on Mars, and to ensure its continued expansion far into the future as well. The goal is to get as many Mormans to Mars, as fast as humanly possible, as well as urging the early settlers to have large families. They construct mostly underground habs, connected by a series of tunnels, expanding in an ever-wider network of living spaces, interspersed with small domes here and there. The mix of people in the Land of Mormon is highly mono-cultural, almost 100% white, and all between the ages of 18 and 35, and all of them proven, devout Mormons, of course. This new society is centered around the Family. Family is No. 1 in this place...woman are encouraged to be full-time mothers, raising and home-schooling their own children, while the men are focused on continuously building new living space. Resources are not a problem, as they have virutally unlimited funding from the Church back home...they need something, they get it from Earth in reletively short order. The way the Land of Mormon deals with so-called "mal-contents" is to ship them back home immediately, so they don't have to have prisons, or having to make accomodations for folks who don't 'fit in' with the rest of the community. The economy here is basically set up on the co-op model, similar to Mariner...some private enterprise is permitted, but is strictly regulated.

***
The last of the three settlements on Mars is founded by the Ares Corporation, a darling of Wall Street at this time..their stock has increased a 1000-fold even before the first Ares ship has landed on Mars. The goal of Ares Corporation is simple: Extract rare and valuable metals from the Martian crust and ship it back to a resource-hungry Earth. Sharonov Crater, located at the end of Kasei Valley has proven to be the "mother lode" of Mars, so that's where they establish their first mining operation and adjecent town, called, appropiately enough, Sharonov City. This is "Outland" redux...a rough-edged frontier settlement with mostly a transient labor force, but a consisting of a community of permanent settlers as well. The method of contruction is the low-cost underground brick-and-mortar living spaces devised back in the 20th century, with only a single, small transperent above-surface dome capable of housing a couple of hundred people...guess who gets to live in there...

The philosphy of Ares Corp and Sharanov city is simple: If you can pay your own way, you can come. It is laissez-faire all the way here...a Wild West frontier town if there ever was one. The economy is 100% free-market, with Ares owning the lion's share of everything, of course, as they paid for the place to begin with. There is no real government to speak of in Sharonov City, just the corporate security force and court system. Sharanov is the only place on Mars where the typical vices of Earth are permitted...alcohol, drugs, prositution, you name it, it can be had here, at a price of course. Everyone must pay for their share of water, air, food, supplies, health care, etc...if you can't, you must rely on 'handouts' from others...which is not easy to come by in this rough place. There is a popular slogan that is often repeated here: The strong and brave are welcomed here...the weak and the meek can just stay home...as this is no place for you.

So...what you think of these three, quite different settlements? Which one would you want to live in if you had your choice? I'm certain there is something about all three you would just hate, but love as well...sounds like 'real life", huh?....

Please be aware that I'm not advocating the pros and cons any of these "m-cities"...I'm just attempting to paint a picture of how people *might* seek to establish themselves on the new frontier. So say whatever you'd like...the point here is to have fun, as well as to stimulate a bit of intelligent discussion...so, please no holding back!

B

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-10 22:35:25

#1 will fail, badly. When it does, the people will have two choices: they can face up to the fact that socialism cannot work and imitate #3, or they can go down the usual path of failing socialist states, and find scapegoats.

#2 may or may not fail, but it SHOULD fail.

#3: YAY TEAM! The only real hope for a workable and dynamic Martian civilization.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-10 23:32:45

A few more observations:

Notice how much more egalitarian #3 is. (If that's your thing.) You don't have to belong to a particular group, nor do you have to fit someone's idea of an elite. All it takes is some cash.

In many ways, the Mars you've imagined will resemble the American colonies. #1 will fail as soon as they get done spending the uber-billionaire's money, so that leaves the last two. The Mormon colony is like the northern colonies, while the free-market colony more closely resembles the southern colonies. BTW, I don't like the name you gave it. Russian names just don't sound free-market. I'll call it Golconda. As I said on the other thread, it just sounds cool. Plus it sounds plausible as a wild, untamed frontier town. So Golconda it is.

The main difference between Schmucktown (I'm renaming that one too ) and the New England colonies is the theology. The Puritans were Calvinists, the Mormons are borderline universalists. The Puritans believed in a single, triune God. Mormons believe that the Trinity is three gods, and that there are infinite other gods for other worlds.

I know that by comparing Golconda to the southern colonies, I'll bring to mind slavery. There are several government on Earth that don't take kindly to slavery, and would probably be willing to spend the money for an expedition just to stop slavery. The British spent that kind of money in the 19th century for just that reason (even though they sided with the South in the civil war). Plus I don't think many Golcondans will take kindly to it either, and it's an open question how much effort the corporate security would put up to stop space John Browns, especially if they're otherwise peaceful. But what came before slavery might just be a good idea: indentured servitude. Basically, somebody pays your way accross, and in exchange you work for room and board for a set number of years. It was usually seven.

There's one thing that might be a problem on Golconda. Men tend to like wild frontier towns more than women. The imbalance will keep the prostitutes busy, but it's not such a good thing, demographically. Mars needs women!

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-11 00:54:19

What's ?egalitarian? about a system which only acknowledges those with cash? The concept is oxymornic.

The first colony is the only colony which would work once high level technology is taken into consideration. The society would obviously be designed with everything in mind. Though I don't see a requirement that all people within it be ?highly intelligent.?

Unlike the third society, (which is actually an unrealistic scenario, since remotely mining asteroids, or Luna would be much cheaper, and would return much more wealth), the first society would be capable of sustaining itself.

The third society would have an inherent dependence on Earth, otherwise those within it would have no reason to keep Ares Corp running, and even if the bosses did, the workers wouldn't. Those working for Ares Corp do, after all, slave away, since for some reason Ares Corp irrationally thinks human labor is cheaper than robotic labor (why ship people there if they didn't?). They work for air, food, and water, 12 hours a day (they work an extra four hours because of .3g), and their habs are incapable of sustaining themselves so Ares Corp itself is in charge of food shipments. Most of the food shipment weight is in high quality gourmet food, meats of all kinds and fresh fruits, but the workers themselves eat cheap protien packs, because they have to pay high rent in their small 10 by 10 foot rooms which two share. Ares Corp pretends that everyone has an equal opportunity, by making gourmet foods and other high quality things available to everyone, but most workers realize that it's bullshit due to the unrealistic cost of these things. Electricity isn't necessary, since the whole worker housing air filtration systems are centrally controlled, workers don't even pay for it; except for the high flat tax that was mandated by Ares Corp. It's not like they have any use for electricity except for light, which they can get from the hallway for ?free? anyway. Most waste is not recycled, but rather dumped out onto the Martian surface, since Ares Corp has no need for it.

The first society, however, treats waste very special. It recycles everything. Even sending robotic rovers over to the Ares Corp waste pile to acquire chemicals so that they can expand their own huge hydoponic gardens ten fold. It's often cheaper to use someone elses garbage than it is to dig up tons of regolith and filter it using complicated processes.

But really, what can a Martian corporation realistically offer to Earth other than tourism, transportation, or ... Martian ?relics?? Shipping minerals to Earth from the surface of Mars is infinitely stupid. Any corporation exploring such an endeavor would fail as soon as another corporation started mining asteroids. Bringing many to Earth's trailing Lagrange point for cheap remote near-Earth mining! And this would probably not even be necessary until very large quantities of materials are taken from Luna.

Which begs a question. Why not keep the corporations at Luna? Mars isn't really for you. Unless someone can really... justify why they would be there.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-11 01:47:00

Ah, that special form of stupid only Josh Cryer can bring...

What's ?egalitarian? about a system which only acknowledges those with cash? The concept is oxymornic.

I see. All the special elites get treated equally, and everyone else can stay on Earth and rot.

Give me an ordinary person with an honest dollar any day.

The first colony is the only colony which would work once high level technology is taken into consideration.

"High level technology" is your magic wand. But I have yet to see what you have in mind other than a suitably contentless factor X to make your notions sound plausible.

The society would obviously be designed with everything in mind.

Except the calculation problem.

Though I don't see a requirement that all people within it be ?highly intelligent.?

Improve your reading skills, pink.

Although a great number of nationalities, races, religions, ages, etc are included in the mix, the founding members of Mariner all have one thing in common: They all come from the top 1/2 of 1% of the range of human intelligence, their genetic make-up have been screened for any propensity to diseases, etc, and they all had to pass the most rigorous battery of psyschological tests ever devised by man.

Unlike the third society, (which is actually an unrealistic scenario, since remotely mining asteroids, or Luna would be much cheaper, and would return much more wealth), the first society would be capable of sustaining itself.

Here we have something resembling a half-decent point. But mining asteroids still needs a base for maintenence. (BUT WAIT! Let's make the plans public, so if anyone wants some iron he can "simply" build himself a rocket, fly out to the belt, and do it himself.) Furthermore, it's entirely possibly there will be resources either unique to Mars or vastly easier to get there. Not to mention tourism.

The next part of your argument consists of dreaming up "facts" about fair Golconda. The problem is, instead of thinking realistically, you're trying to come up with the worst "capitalist" abuses you can and then pretending they're all certain. But not only are they not certainly, there're unrealistic at best. Why?

Capitalists are motivated by profit, not evil.

You seem to imagine they'll pass up obvious cost-saving measures, and basically screw themselves over, for no motive other than having occasions to laugh manaically.

The stupidest is your notion they'd ship all the food from Earth. I'll be honest: you look like a tard for saying that. Why waste all the money to fly out loads of food, when you can let farmers use agricultural domes in exchange for a cut of the take (you know, franchise style)? Here you'll posit that unless kept utterly dependent in every way, the settlers will declare themselves independent and form a workers' paradise. This is because you're an idiot. And then, even though they can save huge $$$ by recycling, they'll dump it all. And hey, instead of competing for the best people, let's mistreat everyone and go out of business.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-11 03:47:21

I see. All the special elites get treated equally, and everyone else can stay on Earth and rot.

Um, who said? This is an ?anyone who can get to Mars? scenerio. One would hope that by the time we get there society would be better for both places. Although with people like you around...

"High level technology" is your magic wand. But I have yet to see what you have in mind other than a suitably contentless factor X to make your notions sound plausible.

Then you are blind, because, unlike you, I actually provide reasoned discorse rather than pointless insults. I don't invoke high level technology because it fits some idealogy of mine, but rather, I look at high level technology and question which systems it best works with. It's irrational to think that the higher level we go, the more centralized things will be.

Except the calculation problem.

Um, which calculation problem?

Improve your reading skills, pink.

Oops, I admit I misread. But I admit I skimmed his and your posts. But oh well, it's not like the substance of my whole post was lacking.

Here we have something resembling a half-decent point. But mining asteroids still needs a base for maintenence.

Sure, the trailing Lagrange point, as I suggested further along in my post. The leading Lagrange point would be fine too. The point is, we could mine asteroids from Earth (or Luna) with a very slight time lag if we wanted. All we have to do is rocket them to the appropriate location.

(BUT WAIT! Let's make the plans public, so if anyone wants some iron he can "simply" build himself a rocket, fly out to the belt, and do it himself.)

I don't see why you need to make the plans public, someone will come up with something eventually. The only reason I make that argument is to prove a point. That it's in a corporations best interest to keep secrets so that people rely on them; instead of actually arguing why it's not in a corporations best interest to keep secrets so that people rely on them, you revert to inane insults (this is most likely due to the fact that you know it's true).

But assume we took a ?let's keep secrets? stand; I would like see how you're going to enforce ?patent laws? in a space faring society. What, are we going to have space-cops who run around in solar sails keeping people from using ?proprietary? technology?

If it's the best known technique, don't expect to be able to keep people from using it. And don't expect any ?reward? for their using it.

Furthermore, it's entirely possibly there will be resources either unique to Mars or vastly easier to get there. Not to mention tourism.

Sure, there will probably be resources that are unique to Mars, at least, generally speaking. But Martians would be wise to keep their resources locally. Why in the hell would I sell a Terran titanium if I didn't need something from a Terran, and if that titanium would be better suited for my own needs (this situation would happen were we to assume that my colony is self sufficient)?

The only reason I would sell it to a Terran would be, as I've explained to you over and over and over again, if I depended on Terra.

The next part of your argument consists of dreaming up "facts" about fair Golconda.

No, they are simply logical conclusions. Golconda (you've gotten so attached to this despot, naming it and all), is itself a logical fallacy unless we create some prerequisites, like denying people technology capable of reducing labor. Or creating a completely brainwashed society of individuals incapable of being begrudged when someone tells them what to do.

The problem is, instead of thinking realistically, you're trying to come up with the worst "capitalist" abuses you can and then pretending they're all certain.

Wrong. First, I'm trying to understand what kind of ?labor? Martians will be doing. I can't imagine that individuals will be manually laboring away in mineshafts. I can't even imagine that they would be laboring away in their own agriculture fields!

If we can assume (I hope it's not too hard for you to play with Josh-magic) that people will have less, if no labor under a wisely designed, highly technological society, why need there be any corporatism at all? It makes absolutely zero sense.

But not only are they not certainly, there're unrealistic at best. Why?
Capitalists are motivated by profit, not evil.

I never said otherwise, or even suggested. I was merely showing that for it to work, some obviously stupid things would have to be in place. Explain, in all your infinite wisdom, why I would listen to you tell me what to do, if I could exist independently of your incessant dictating?

If I was working for Byron's mining labor force, and I had the potential to exist independently, I would try my damnedest to, and I don't doubt that I couldn't convince most of my fellow laborers to help. We're on Mars, damnit!

You seem to imagine they'll pass up obvious cost-saving measures, and basically screw themselves over, for no motive other than having occasions to laugh manaically.

Not at all. To be self sufficient is to renounce any reason to continue a mode of resource appropriation. It really is that simple. The point is, that if they want to have any rational reason to continue a mode of resource appropriation, they have to be less than self sufficient.

The stupidest is your notion they'd ship all the food from Earth. I'll be honest: you look like a tard for saying that.

Thank you! Finally, someone who agrees that this is silly. clark used to argue that this is how it would be, of course. And even you, before, claimed that ?independence is impossible.? But at least you admit that growing their own food and recycling would be feasible. That's basically all there is to it.

Why waste all the money to fly out loads of food, when you can let farmers use agricultural domes in exchange for a cut of the take (you know, franchise style)?

See a few paragraphs up. They have to do it because any other system would potentially be able to cut ties with the Terran governments / corporations / etc. Even if, as I said earlier in this post, the ?bosses? still stay true, the workers or colonists will not, at least no sane ones would. It would make no sense for them. Just look at the damn resturant analogy again. Everyone winds up working for the resturant so that they can eat at the resturant!

Here you'll posit that unless kept utterly dependent in every way, the settlers will declare themselves independent and form a workers' paradise. This is because you're an idiot.

Workers paradise? Screw work!

But thanks for some more enlightening words of wisdom. Everyone agrees with you, I'm sure. I, my friends, am an idiot!

But explain to me. Why wouldn't they declare themselves independent? Do they like working in the resturant so that they can eat there? (One must reiterate, that because the resturant has to profit, the workers would spend more time working in the resturant than they would working for themselves if they didn't work there.)

And then, even though they can save huge $$$ by recycling, they'll dump it all.

Dump what all? And where would they dump it? Funny how you blame me for pretending that capitalism is cost inefficient, knowing that the only workable system is socialism. Capitalism is consume and socialism is recycle. It's that simple, really.

Byron · 2002-11-11 17:33:32

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

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-11 19:07:09

Josh;

I knew you were an idiot, but your reply takes it to a whole new level.

Then you are blind, because, unlike you, I actually provide reasoned discorse rather than pointless insults.

It only looks reasoned to you because you don't know squat about economics. To people living in the real world, you just string a bunch of howlers together.

I don't invoke high level technology because it fits some idealogy of mine, but rather, I look at high level technology and question which systems it best works with.

If that's true, you need to question some more. Experience has shown that at each and every level of technology humans have ever had, freedom works better than socialism. If you mean to tell me that just a little bit more will suddenly reverse the laws of economics, you'll need a heck of a lot more than just assertions.

It's irrational to think that the higher level we go, the more centralized things will be.

There are several levels of stupidity here.

1) We have certainly not become less capitalist as technology progressed.

2) Capitalism is anything but centralized. If you can't even understand what we have now, why should we pay any attention to your ideas for something else?

3) Reflecting economic reality, in Byron's scenario Ares Corp. owns the "lion's share" of Golconda, but Mariner is run as a single, socialist co-op. Golconda is less centralized than Mariner.

Um, which calculation problem?

The one that dooms all socialist economies.

I don't see why you need to make the plans public, someone will come up with something eventually...

Damn you're stupid. Not only did you miss the point entirely, you said I secretly agree with you. Ha!

If you make the plans public, or have someone figure out new plans, or whatever, you won't open up competition by that much. You'll just reduce entrance costs, not abolish them, since you've still got to build the rocket. And then there's the oportunity costs, that is, what you would otherwise be able to do, but now won't be because you're in a ship going to the asteroid belt.

Abolish proprietary knowledge, and the only difference in capitalism will a somewhat higher number of new businesses, reflecting reduced, but not abolished, entrance costs.

Sure, there will probably be resources that are unique to Mars, at least, generally speaking. But Martians would be wise to keep their resources locally. Why in the hell would I sell a Terran titanium if I didn't need something from a Terran, and if that titanium would be better suited for my own needs (this situation would happen were we to assume that my colony is self sufficient)?

A farmer can become self-sufficient now. He'd have to give up harvestors that require gasoline, but there are still such things as horses. He'd live like an Amish person, but he could do it. So why don't we see farmers all becoming self-sufficient? Because they'd live like Amish people.

As I've explained repeatedly, trade makes everyone involved richer, otherwise it wouldn't happen. So if you're a non-stupid Martian, you'd be perfectly willing to sell to Terrans if they have, not things you need, but things you want. That's how trade has always worked, and that's how it always will.

But Mars will need supplies from Earth for longer than our foreseeable lifespans, as I'll explain later.

The only reason I would sell it to a Terran would be, as I've explained to you over and over and over again, if I depended on Terra.

No, you've asserted it over and over and over again. And you've been refuted over and over and over again.

Does America depend on England? No? But we sell things to them.

I was merely showing that for it to work, some obviously stupid things would have to be in place.

In order to make that claim, you would have to have demonstrated why any of those things "would have to be in place". Instead you just asserted that that's how it would be. Believe it or not, your mere assertion does not constitute proof.

But not only did you not show that it would have to work like that, I showed that it couldn't work like that, giving actual reasons.

clark used to argue that this is how it would be, of course.

Figures.

And even you, before, claimed that ?independence is impossible.? But at least you admit that growing their own food and recycling would be feasible. That's basically all there is to it.

Independence is impossible. Growing the food on Mars is not only feasible, it's the only feasible way of getting food there. Launching it from Earth is prohibively expensive, and if, for some reason, growing food on Mars turns out to be unfeasible, it's all off, even a flags and footprints mission. But food is not all there is to it. The only feasible power source is a nuclear reactor. It's not feasible to build one on Mars. It's going to have to come from Earth, and the money for it's going to have to come from somewhere.

They have to do it because any other system would potentially be able to cut ties with the Terran governments / corporations / etc. Even if, as I said earlier in this post, the ?bosses? still stay true, the workers or colonists will not, at least no sane ones would. It would make no sense for them.

No they wouldn't, at least not completely, because they still need power. But even if they could, they won't, because it's in their interest to trade.

Capitalism is consume and socialism is recycle. It's that simple, really.

Which is why the former Soviet Union inherited such a good environment from the communists.

Byron;

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's not so much that, as the belief itself which I find objectionable.

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 it's going to be that expensive, it's prohibitive, and the whole thing simply won't be happening.

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...

I don't think you'll see actual slavery. There are several Terran governments that would stop that. And I also don't think many people would sign up for lifetime indentured servitude. It'll be a period of years, and then they'll have to be let go. That itself, BTW, represents a potential problem. What do all the former indentured servents do, other than hang around all day causing trouble? It was just that problem that caused Virginia to switch to slavery. But it's a different time, and that won't be happening. Probably either back to Earth, or starting businesses (probably catering to the vices you mentioned).

Aetius · 2002-11-11 20:29:06

This thread is great, minus the name-calling...

Tough call, but I think the Mormon colony would ultimately be the most successful. The Ares Corporation colony would also do very well, as long as some kind of social safety net is ultimately established. Otherwise, I can easily imagine many of its most hardworking and under-appreciated citizens suddenly converting to Mormonism and re-enacting their own version of Exodus.

I don't trust socialist domination as a governing principle, for many of the reasons AJ has stated (albeit in a somewhat acid-tongued manner). Due to the nature of the human beast, I seriously doubt that option #1 (glowingly portrayed by Kim Stanley Robinson in his Mars Trilogy) would thrive in comparison to the other two colonies.

But that's just my opinion.

Aetius · 2002-11-11 20:33:33

As AJ pointed out, this discussion was begun with the stated assumption that the Ares Corporation town could profitably export Mars' mineral wealth to Earth.

Just to head off that objection if it raises its head again...

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-12 00:47:37

I knew you were an idiot, but your reply takes it to a whole new level.

Interesting, I got a good laugh out of your own non-reply. I'm just going to ignore your pointless insults.

If that's true, you need to question some more. Experience has shown that at each and every level of technology humans have ever had, freedom works better than socialism.

Um, define ?freedom.? That's the problem with current society, they automatically associate capitalism with ?freedom? despite the fact that capitalism is diametrically opposed to freedom. The only good thing about capitalism is that it's a great growth producer. I wouldn't think of stopping capitalism at this juncture, the resources aren't there yet. One must note that I've never suggested that- I've only suggested that once we're capable of living on Mars, we won't be using capitalism.

If you mean to tell me that just a little bit more will suddenly reverse the laws of economics, you'll need a heck of a lot more than just assertions.

Who's reversing the ?laws of economics?? The laws of economics necessarily rely on supply and demand, I'm merely suggesting a system in which demand is non-existant or at least largely irrelevant because supply is overwhelming. This isn't ?reversing the laws of economics,? this is merely bringing the ?laws of economics? to a rational playing field, if we take into consideration higher level technology.

This of course, is too hard for you to understand, because you think your one world view is impervious to any sort of criticism.

There are several levels of stupidity here.
1) We have certainly not become less capitalist as technology progressed.
2) Capitalism is anything but centralized. If you can't even understand what we have now, why should we pay any attention to your ideas for something else?
3) Reflecting economic reality, in Byron's scenario Ares Corp. owns the "lion's share" of Golconda, but Mariner is run as a single, socialist co-op. Golconda is less centralized than Mariner.

1) Sure we have, as resources become more and more abundant, people share technology and information more. Look at the PC, ever since the IBM BIOS was reverse engineered, the PC took off. Probably one of the first examples of higher level technology profiting from openness. Now-a-days manuals for CPUs for the IBM PC are available before the CPUs are even created enmasse. The point isn't that technology itself is less capitalist, but that more abundant resources are.

2) Um. Every single capitalist workplace I know of works like this:

Owner.
Boss. Boss.
Manager. Manager. Manager. Manager.
Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker.

This is called centralization. Live with it moron.

3) You have provided no reasoning for this. Mariner would be decentralized. People would be in charge of their own habs and so on. From what I've learned, Marxism became despotic philosophy when the anarchists were kicked out, and it makes sense. Anarchists were for individual freedom, whereas Marxists felt power over individuals was necessary ?to the cause? (much like you think capitalism is necessary, I'm sure). If Mariner was centralized, I would agree that it would not work for long, but since it isn't (and you provided no reason that it would), I don't have to.

The one that dooms all socialist economies.

Oh, you mean Stalinist prescriptive economies? Well, we've seen that that dosen't work, and we know that capitalism is a much better growth producer, so I agree. But socialist descriptive economies are a whole other beast, if you want to get in to that.

As a rule, socialism cannot exist in a resource deprived system. Otherwise it's simply despotic. Also, as a rule, capitalism cannot exist in a resource abundant system (note that I'm not saying that free trade cannot exist). Otherwise it's simply draconian.

If you make the plans public, or have someone figure out new plans, or whatever, you won't open up competition by that much.

That's probably true if it were to happen now; the PC industry doesn't have many competitors (from a CPU perspective) even though their plans are fairly open. But this is not a future, technologically advanced society. What if the whole production process to the PC industry were open and the resources to create that technology was adundant? An average PC is less than a pound of metal and plastics, on average! How much does a pound of metal and plastic cost? Not very much, you yourself must admit.

You'll just reduce entrance costs, not abolish them, since you've still got to build the rocket.

Well, yeah, I agree. And we'd be better not building a rocket using the corporations plans, anyway. I mean, they probably get resources from other companies, and so on and so forth. We'd have outsource from the same people they do. We'd be better off if we just skipped the whole process completely, and designed one from scratch. Can we do that now? No. And I never suggested we could. Can we do that in the future with higher level technology? Yes. Care to deny that?

Abolish proprietary knowledge, and the only difference in capitalism will a somewhat higher number of new businesses, reflecting reduced, but not abolished, entrance costs.

Well, the Iraqi oil example is much better (which you have yet to refute). The ?proprietary knowledge? argument doesn't go very far to show that dependency is inherently profitable. Mainly because it's not a physical item, like, say, property, which can be defended or protected much easier.

A farmer can become self-sufficient now. He'd have to give up harvestors that require gasoline, but there are still such things as horses. He'd live like an Amish person, but he could do it. So why don't we see farmers all becoming self-sufficient? Because they'd live like Amish people.

Um, no he wouldn't. He'd just have to build a hydroponic garden. Remember Ford's famous quote in the other thread? (Or did you not see it?) He said ?There's enough alcohol in one year's yeild of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for one hundred years.? All he would have to do is set aside 10%-20% of his land to take care of his own energy needs.

Farmers don't become self sufficient because the resources to become self sufficient don't exist yet! First thing we ought to do, is repeal the alcohol tax, or make it exempt for farmers who grow their own alcohol to power their own machinery. Second, is to work on creating machines which are much more efficient than they are now. Combustion engines waste around 80% of their energy in heat alone. That energy can almost certainly be used.

The point is, that with high level technology your argument is thrown out the window and perhaps now you finally see my point.

You really ought to read that thread.

As I've explained repeatedly, trade makes everyone involved richer, otherwise it wouldn't happen. So if you're a non-stupid Martian, you'd be perfectly willing to sell to Terrans if they have, not things you need, but things you want.

Yes, I agree. Free trade is inherently necessary for a healthy society. I'm not talking communism, here. I agree that we'd sell Martian titanium for something we wanted from Earth. I've said it before...

...I just think you exaggerate the importance of Earth-items to a Martian. The first Terran settlers will obviously want things from Earth. But each generation will be more disjunct from Earth from a cultural prespective. Sure, there will be the tourist here and there, and exchange of novelity items isn't that far fetched. But it's largely a non-issue. They'll be two different worlds, no matter how much you wish to keep them connected.

No, you've asserted it over and over and over again. And you've been refuted over and over and over again.

Saying something doesn't make it true, A.J. Sorry to break it to you.

Does America depend on England? No? But we sell things to them.

It was never suggested that we do. You should really go read some of the other threads, of participate more in these forums instead of appearing occassionally to diss socialism or liberalism, or leftism. Or any form of progress at all.

Just don't forget the Boston Tea Party.

In order to make that claim, you would have to have demonstrated why any of those things "would have to be in place".

Hmm, I thought I did. If resources were as abundant as I imply with high level technology, there would be no rational reason to submit to a boss or any other centralized system of control. The problem, is that you've failed to show how people would continue submitting to a boss if resources were as abundant as I argue they would be in a highly technological society. Indeed, you've only enforced my ideas by showing your lack of understanding with your close mind with regard to farmers which are self sufficient... to quote you, ?[self sufficient farmers would] live like Amish people.?

Please. I'm beginning to question why I even acknowledge you anymore, since we've clearly been over these issues several times. All I get from you is typical, empty, right-wing insults. And no, you haven't really refuted anything I've said. You just forget to take into consideration reality, and live in the 50s or something.

Independence is impossible.

Earth's ecosystem is independent (except for the sun- but all ecosystems require an energy source). Earth's ecosystem is hardly impossible (we're existing within it, aren't we?).

[...] food is not all there is to it. The only feasible power source is a nuclear reactor.

Ahh, your logic once again rears its ugly head. I don't see why solar power can't be used. Because it would cost too much to send? Why not devise a way to create solar cells efficiently and simply on Mars? Oh, wait, it that impossible too? There's this thing... called the ?plant...? it makes a great solar cell... just ask those techno-farmers...

It's not feasible to build one on Mars.

It's feasible to build anything you want on Mars. You just need the infrastructure there to build it. That infrastructure will exist much easier because we'll have high level technology. Why do I ?invoke? it? I must have said it a hundred times by now. I invoke it because the only way to exist in space for any significant period of time is with it! You can't deny that.

No they wouldn't, at least not completely, because they still need power.

Um, they'd get most, if not all of their power from the sun. Even if they found nuclear power to be appropriate, they could find u235 on Mars, and it would be cheaper to get at if they had the proper equipment.

Which is why the former Soviet Union inherited such a good environment from the communists.

The Soviet Union was hardly any reflection of socialism.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-12 01:55:18

Aetius;

I don't think the social safety net will be a problem. If you're a religion that wants an organized Martian presence but doesn't have the resources to build a settlement from scratch, Golconda's your place. It has the advantage of plenty of heathens to convert. So churches can do it.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't build something like this can't be built and then hooked up to the rest of the base.

While I'm at it, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be anyone interested in sending scientists, even after they close the scientific base. The obvious place to send scientists would be Golconda, since both the others have entrance requirements the scientists might not meet, and are focused on sociological agendas. While Golconda may start as nothing but an outpost for one company, with everything run by and for that company, I don't think it'll last very long. More people will come in with their own consumer demands Martian businesses can cater to, diversifying the economy, and other groups will come in bringing their own influences.

Consider the cultural differences. Mariner will have everything interesting or vital processed out before arriving on Mars (and will be doomed from the start), the Land of Mormon will be monocultural (and heretical), and both will be, in their different ways, fixated on building an impossible utopia. Golconda will be a haphazard mix of adventurous young people, people looking to strike it rich, corporate administrators, third worlders (or more likely, Eastern Europeans) looking for a better life, religious settlers, and researchers. Whatever else happens, life in Golconda will be so much more interesting.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-12 03:32:54

The basic difference between Mariner and Golconda is that the people will share, air, water, and food in Mariner, but would duke it out in fanciful cowboy-esque duels for those things in Golconda. Also, people will have equal access to any available resources in Mariner, but such a concept would be laughable in Golconda. I hardly consider that ?processed out of vital or interesting properteries.? In fact, I think that Mariner would have much more room for opportunity, since as we know, not everyone has the ability to climb the hierarchal ladder in a centralized society centered around a monopoly [Golconda]. This is assuming that the jobs Golconda offers are even realistic (which they're not- they're laughable, no offense to Byron). The people of Golconda would be a mindless bunch, indeed.

BTW, you guys are seriously kidding yourselves if you think there's ?profit? to be made in space.

This is actually my main gripe with Zubrin's ideas.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-12 04:10:10

Josh;

Interesting, I got a good laugh out of your own non-reply.

I suppose defining anything other than, "Josh, you're so smart! I wish I weren't such an evil idiot that I didn't see your genius right away! Lead me to the millenium!" as a non-reply will protect your fatasies from real-world analysis, but it's not very honest.

Um, define ?freedom.? That's the problem with current society, they automatically associate capitalism with ?freedom? despite the fact that capitalism is diametrically opposed to freedom.

Yet another howler.

Capitalism=free exchange=free trade=free markets=laissez faire=freedom. Capitalism is just a term for the practice of the free market, and the free market is just what people do to provide for themselves on their own when you leave them alone.

The laws of economics necessarily rely on supply and demand, I'm merely suggesting a system in which demand is non-existant or at least largely irrelevant because supply is overwhelming.

But supply is overwhelming now. You just don't notice because we're used to it. So you say supply will become even more overwhelming. And of course it will. But people will get used to it and adjust their demand accordingly. You lack historical perspective just as much as you lack even the most rudimentary understanding of economics.

1) Sure we have, as resources become more and more abundant, people share technology and information more. Look at the PC, ever since the IBM BIOS was reverse engineered, the PC took off. Probably one of the first examples of higher level technology profiting from openness. Now-a-days manuals for CPUs for the IBM PC are available before the CPUs are even created enmasse. The point isn't that technology itself is less capitalist, but that more abundant resources are.

That's not less capitalist at all.

2) Um. Every single capitalist workplace I know of works like this:
Owner.
Boss. Boss.
Manager. Manager. Manager. Manager.
Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker. Worker.
This is called centralization. Live with it moron.

If there was ONE company in the economy, that would be a good point. As it is, it's just stupid. And not only are there many corporations, there are freelancers, family business, drug dealers, ect, and all of them are part of capitalism. Capitalism is just what we call it when people exchange with each other freely.

And, BTW, there usually isn't a single owner, but a number of stockholders, some of whom are employees.

3) You have provided no reasoning for this. Mariner would be decentralized. People would be in charge of their own habs and so on. From what I've learned, Marxism became despotic philosophy when the anarchists were kicked out, and it makes sense. Anarchists were for individual freedom, whereas Marxists felt power over individuals was necessary ?to the cause? (much like you think capitalism is necessary, I'm sure). If Mariner was centralized, I would agree that it would not work for long, but since it isn't (and you provided no reason that it would), I don't have to.

You provided no reasons Golconda would keep workers in dark tiny apartments, but that didn't stop you. (But then, you seem to be under the impression that your mere assertion constitutes proof, or at least a powerful argument.)

But the answer here is simple. First, Byron said, "essentially the whole city is one giant co-op." Not a bunch of little co-ops. So by initial stipulation, the economy is centrally planned. Second, what happens if someone sets up a stand with a big sign that says "Al's Hot Sauces", and uses it to sell hot sauces? Either some authority intervenes, or you admit capitalism and socialism is at an end. You might say it's not capitalism if it's just one guy. I say bollocks! It's capitalism whenever you have people buying and selling without interference. If you let it go, and people like the sauce, pretty soon he'll have a teenager working the register when he's cooking up new sauces or at home arguing with socialist tards over the Marsnet. Eventually you've got everyone in the system livening up their nutritional paste with Al's Premium Habanero Sauce.

Oh, you mean Stalinist prescriptive economies? Well, we've seen that that dosen't work, and we know that capitalism is a much better growth producer, so I agree. But socialist descriptive economies are a whole other beast, if you want to get in to that.
As a rule, socialism cannot exist in a resource deprived system. Otherwise it's simply despotic. Also, as a rule, capitalism cannot exist in a resource abundant system (note that I'm not saying that free trade cannot exist). Otherwise it's simply draconian.

I mean all economies without a free market. Now, what've you got in mind by "free trade"? If it's letting people buy and sell as they please (so long as they aren't selling their services as hitmen, or whatever), you'll certainly have no calculation problem, since you'll have an unfettered free market. It's just that you'll have thrown out everything you've been saying.

That's probably true if it were to happen now; the PC industry doesn't have many competitors (from a CPU perspective) even though their plans are fairly open. But this is not a future, technologically advanced society. What if the whole production process to the PC industry were open and the resources to create that technology was adundant? An average PC is less than a pound of metal and plastics, on average! How much does a pound of metal and plastic cost? Not very much, you yourself must admit.

You have a question implying that things would be different, by gum, if only the production processes were open and the resources were abundant, in the middle of a paragraph admitting it's pretty much that way already.

Well, yeah, I agree. And we'd be better not building a rocket using the corporations plans, anyway. I mean, they probably get resources from other companies, and so on and so forth. We'd have outsource from the same people they do. We'd be better off if we just skipped the whole process completely, and designed one from scratch. Can we do that now? No. And I never suggested we could. Can we do that in the future with higher level technology? Yes. Care to deny that?

Homemade space rockets? Maybe. Building something that can get you out of the Earth's gravity well is not trivial, and then you have to get to an asteroid. If you can do it, minering companies can do it with economies of scale. And you haven't addressed the opportunity cost, the amount of time you'd spend going to get your own iron. This is almost unbelievable: I set up the most preposterous length you could go to. You should've just called it a staw man (it's not, but that was your best tactic), but instead you've defended it! However you cut it, it's easier to just pay a mining company to bring iron to you than it is to take the time to do it yourself.

Um, no he wouldn't. He'd just have to build a hydroponic garden. Remember Ford's famous quote in the other thread? (Or did you not see it?) He said ?There's enough alcohol in one year's yeild of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for one hundred years.? All he would have to do is set aside 10%-20% of his land to take care of his own energy needs.
Farmers don't become self sufficient because the resources to become self sufficient don't exist yet! First thing we ought to do, is repeal the alcohol tax, or make it exempt for farmers who grow their own alcohol to power their own machinery. Second, is to work on creating machines which are much more efficient than they are now. Combustion engines waste around 80% of their energy in heat alone. That energy can almost certainly be used.
The point is, that with high level technology your argument is thrown out the window and perhaps now you finally see my point.

I suppose it will be easier in the future. But they can still do it now. And even with everything you've described, they won't, for pretty much the same reason I said to begin with, namely, they'd have less wealth than they would selling their crops.

Yes, I agree. Free trade is inherently necessary for a healthy society. I'm not talking communism, here. I agree that we'd sell Martian titanium for something we wanted from Earth.

Uh, dude...

That's called capitalism.

You may not think much of it will happen. Heck, shipping costs will make sure not much of it will happen.

But it's called capitalism.

And unless somebody with a gun gets in the way, on each planet a lot of it will happen.

If resources were as abundant as I imply with high level technology, there would be no rational reason to submit to a boss or any other centralized system of control. The problem, is that you've failed to show how people would continue submitting to a boss if resources were as abundant as I argue they would be in a highly technological society.

Here we have a typically leftist lack of understanding of human nature.

Abundant is a relative term.

I know exactly what situation you're describing, but unless somebody figures out how to make those replicators from Star Trek, it's never going to happen. People will simply ratchet up their demand. Unless supply is not merely abundant, but infinite, scarcity will continue.

They'll probably be slaving away nine to five so they can save up for something we can't even imagine yet.

I don't see why solar power can't be used. Because it would cost too much to send? Why not devise a way to create solar cells efficiently and simply on Mars? Oh, wait, it that impossible too? There's this thing... called the ?plant...? it makes a great solar cell... just ask those techno-farmers...

Oh, they can already be built simply and efficiently. Doing it on Mars will be easy. It's just that it'll take an awful lot of them for the kind of power a base would need. Plus no "waste" heat you can take advantage of for bricks or whatever you need heat for.

And you're much too optimistic about the ability of Martians to build their own. In the first place, there won't be any Martians without at least a few to begin with. Maybe it'll work if you have some technicians go live on Mars, but otherwise it's not going to happen. We're not talking about auto repair here: it has to be done right.

The Soviet Union was hardly any reflection of socialism.

Just keep telling yourself that.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-12 04:23:13

The basic difference between Mariner and Golconda is that the people will share, air, water, and food in Mariner, but would duke it out in fanciful cowboy-esque duels for those things in Golconda.

Sometime in the future you'll probably claim to have "shown" this.

In fact, it's the reverse. Golconda, being robustly capitalist, will have plenty.

Mariner, on the other hand, will have the best health care in the solar system and not enough food. That's how socialist economies usually work out: with no efficient price mechanism, the products, and the need for the products, will not match.

But, as long as I'm projecting based on (here comes a bad word) history, Mariner will react by blaming Mormon saboteurs and turning in on itself. Before it's all over a lot of people will be tossed out the airlock.

And the processing I mentioned was this:

They all come from the top 1/2 of 1% of the range of human intelligence, their genetic make-up have been screened for any propensity to diseases, etc, and they all had to pass the most rigorous battery of psyschological tests ever devised by man.

clark · 2002-11-12 13:01:59

I will declare that all proposals are workable, and would lead to a colonized Mars. None is better than the other.

First, let me point out that if Gloncada (the free market test bed) were to be set up, we would see a highly technological group of people, where people are few and far between. Gloncada exists to serve the Ares corporation. The town exists to provide a place for the human component of this economic equation- it only exists to serve this end. Any addition to the habitat is either created to house more workers for Ares Corp, or is created by individuals who have somehow managed to acquire enough capital to create their own habitat on Ares. Ares has a financial interest in reducing the number of people necessary to operate their mining equipment on mars- the reason, profit. Labor in space will be the greatest expense. No matter how much they charge for air, water, and power to their captive employees, it will never be enough to cover the actual cost of producing the air, water, power and all the necessary infrastructure that would have to be created to support the workforce they are dependant upon to get the minerals that are necessary for their business model.

What is the quickest and easiest way to get minerals without having to pay much for them? Maybe high efficiency coupled with a high degree of automation. The "vices" available in Gloncada are a bit misguided as well. It costs a lot to live in space, how much is a prostitute going to have to charge to make ends meet? Especially when there are relatively few customers (remember, Ares has no financial incentive to have people on Mars- and financial incentive is the ultimate decision-maker in a free-market economy, right AJ?) You won't need 10,000 "drones"- you'll need a couple hundred specialized technicians- the largest group simply being the mining technicians that operate and maintain the mining machines- this group is "rotating" out- they are there to make a few bucks, not colonize- so most of their currency is going back to Terra- not to gambling and the other vices- they can't build a future since they lack the necessary capital as individuals. Of course Ares could get into the business of supplying these people with loans and such to build their own home- but to what end? What would an ex-Ares mining technician do? Mine perhaps? Well, why would Ares want to help create competition for the same resources they are after? It goes against their long-term financial future.

Ares only interest in Mars is as a resource, not as a destination. The people that go there are doing so as contract employees to do a job- they are hired because they are necessary, not because they are wanted. Ares will always be interested in reducing the overhead (i.e. the cost of people and the support of said people)- that means using only machines, and using machines that can be operated by multiple people.
The people will more than likely be rotated out quickly, so as to reduce health care costs.

The Mormon colony will work as well. They exist on Mars for one goal, to be fruitful and multiply. All they do is develop more resources to maintain their constant growth curve. However, they will reach a limit on what they are able to support- since there is no mechanism to prevent over breeding, the point where they can no longer expand in a safe manner, they will start to be hit by breakdowns and machine failures. They have continual support, but eventually, even those sources will buckle under the cost of supporting them- then the people on mars will have to look for a way to create revenue streams- more than likely, working for the Ares Corp- mining for them- the Mormons become your labor pool, and Ares no longer has to worry about the cost of supporting their people. Ares instead just focuses on maintaining the transport ships (they become the distributor of the resources)- the Mormons then become glorified rock farmers- getting paid very little for the minerals, and Ares collecting the lion share since they control the distribution network (see Josh, distribution control is key).

Sure the Mormons could try to compete, but the Ares has a built in time advantage and probably the most valuable mineral rights- which means they can always send their own miners in if the Mormons get uppity (not that they would since they [Mormons] depend on the revenue from Ares in order to maintain their primary goal, continual expansion to allow constant and unmanaged breeding)

Of course, maybe I am missing something; I have yet to understand what all these Mormons are doing, other than breeding. So a world full of people peopling an empty world, sounds hollow and meaningless to me- but, I guess life must have a purpose, so why not that, eh.

Then of course there is the monument to secular elitism called Mariner. A world full of the best and brightest by some standard, and funded by a multi-billionaire. Okay, they would work- probably not need many laws (they are the 'best' and simply know better about moderation, and can foresee their individual actions and the repercussions they have in a larger context). They create a habitat for 100,000 people. Now what? Will it be filled with their children or more people who didn't make the last cut? If it is the people who didn't make the cut, then the value of the best and brightest is diluted as less qualified applicants join the elite group.

No doubt though, they will be scientists and such- again, they don't need many people due to the necessity of automation (they are not after numbers like the Mormons, and they do have financial considerations more approaching Ares, yet the number there is predetermined). They are not necessarily looking to populate an entire world- it seems they are creating an island that can support a certain amount of people- it is a kingdom unto itself, that once created, will begin to be what it is. Since they will not be constantly building, they will have more opportunity and incentive to develop their "own way". To experiment. I'm sure part of that is developing a means to support themselves, which would probably be likely given that they have such a talented pool of labor to draw on- they are the scientists, engineers, theorists, geneticist, etc.- their resources will be ensured by intellectual property- sorry Josh, but these people will develop the means to live in space effectively and will require the funds from the sale and use of their discoveries in order to survive beyond the dictates of their billionaire philanthropist. More than likely they could simply sell to the Mormons plans for better machines to build habs, and better machinery that requires less people to manage it.

In summary, each would work, in their own way, regardless of some rants. However, some fulfil the dream of mars better than others. Ares will not lead to long term human habitation of mars. The Mormons will, but it is only people on mars for the sake of having people on mars. The Mariners would probably develop something along a Martian culture, but it would be a tiny fraction of humanity that would ever see the fruits of their project.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-12 16:33:37

clark;

It's GOLCONDA.

A few points:

Remember, Byron said that anyone who can pay his way over can go to Golconda. So anyone who wants to settle Mars who isn't Mormon, isn't one of the "elite", and doesn't have the money to start a whole new city goes to Golconda. I can't imagine there would be any lack of such people. So Golconda as a permanent city will not need to rely on Ares to bring in population. What would they do? Probably set up their own agricultural domes for food and sell things to the Ares people or other settlers like themselves for extra cash. That could be where the vices come in, or they could make any number of supplies. After enough people show up, you could make a good living from selling things to the farmers.

You and several others are assuming that life support will be very expensive. I don't think that's certain. The air and water will be recycled, and, under Bryon's scenario, there will have been plenty of time to perfect the technology, which of course would make it more efficient and less expensive.

clark · 2002-11-12 16:53:15

Now who is invoking high-technology mumbo jumbo?

Golconda exists to serve the needs of Ares- remember, Ares is interested in mining- and their financial incentive is to extract as many resources for as little as possible to reap the largest profit. Golconda is created by Ares to house their workers- why would Ares build extra habitat? What is the financial incentive? Rent to new settlers? Why? To what end? To farm and sell to others? Again, why would Glocanda willingly invite competition- it seems they could automate most of the farming (look at the number of farmers needed on Earth to feed the entire population). Ares will be responsible for providing food- which they can sell to the workers on Mars- if venture farmers set up shop, then Ares no longer has a monopoly, which reduces their ability to recoup the cost of farming, or even the profit margin they would have enjoyed minus the competition.

Also, the people in Ares will be rotated out rather quickly- one for health reasons, two- to prevent the creation of any type of union (it's hard to organize collectively if you are only temps to begin with), and three- the money being earned is being either spent on the necessities (everyone has to pay their own way in Glocanda) or is being sent back home. The number of actual workers will only grow smaller as time progress's- as technology increases, less human workers are needed- automation reduces the number of people necessary- without a sizable population base, there can be no large scale service sector to fulfil their needs. How many farmers are you going to need if you only have a few hundred miners? One or two? So then there won't be enough of a market to support wide spread competition- it would be so cutthroat (small maket to sell to). It's like predators and prey- predators need a sizable prey population to support them- the same is true for large-scale free market economies to work properly.

Again, the vices are rather wishful thinking since the cost would be prohibitive for most people- the prostitutes won't have enough of a client base to make any kind of money- bars and gambling? Perhaps, but to what end really?

Life support will be expensive because machines are required for all necessary components for life to exist on mars. Air is not free- it must be manufactured, and energy is required to produce it. Power is not free, and a great deal of it will be required for any space venture- all of which costs money. Water must be manufactured; processed- all of which takes power, and costs money. You know I am right, it's pretty plain and simple- everything must be manufactured- so even the machines that are necessary is extra cost.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-11-12 17:26:33

Out of 100,000,000 applicants, only 10,000 get to go to Mars...and they all go within a few years of each other with one goal in mind...to construct a huge, transperent dome capable of holding 100,000 people.

Byron:

In the fourth chapter of Space Biospheres, (Orbit Book Company; Malabar, Florida, 1987) authors John Allen and Mark Nelson presented an outline of their plans for a "Mars Settlement I." The site plan of the settlement, viewed from above, looks like a snowflake that has four arms (see page 81). A "Replication Line" through the tip of one of the four arms indicates the point where a Mars Settlement II could be built. People would live in MSI while they worked to construct MSII. After the completion of MSII, more settlers could immigrate from Earth and undertake the construction of MSIII. Then more settlers could immigrate from Earth and begin the construction of MSIV. Eventually, there would be thousands of people living is hundreds of interconnected settlements.

The development pattern recommended by Allen and Nelson seems practical and achievable. In contrast, the proposition that a clear dome could be constructed to house 100,000 people is not achievable.

Scott

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-12 17:51:15

I suppose defining anything other than, "Josh, you're so smart! I wish I weren't such an evil idiot that I didn't see your genius right away! Lead me to the millenium!" as a non-reply will protect your fatasies from real-world analysis, but it's not very honest.

That's the thing, you haven't even given a real world analysis. You've just spouted garbage, without considering the advancements society will have. Indeed, you laughably think we have resource surpluses now, when most of humanity is starving. Your world view is totally unrealistic, and twisted into pathetic buzzwords. You are the dishonest one here, or highly misinformed.

Capitalism=free exchange=free trade=free markets=laissez faire=freedom. Capitalism is just a term for the practice of the free market, and the free market is just what people do to provide for themselves on their own when you leave them alone.

Tsk. Capitalism doesn't mean free trade. On the contrary. Capitalism can't even function without regulation, otherwise you have a few monopolies, and the concept of ?free trade? becomes completely foreign. Capitalism is just a term for the practice of monopolistic consumption.

Libertarianism is a joke. And it's increasingly hard for me to listen to this bullshit about how [their version of] the ?free market? equals ?freedom.?

But supply is overwhelming now. You just don't notice because we're used to it.

No, supply is getting better, but technologically, we aren't there by any means. Most of the world is starving; due largely in part to corporations ?exhibiting their free trade? on small nations. Crap, there are whole countries basically existing for one American product; like chocolate.

We're decades off from being at a economical plateau, as long as we don't blow ourselves up first.

So you say supply will become even more overwhelming. And of course it will. But people will get used to it and adjust their demand accordingly.

Okay, so, basically, you're saying that if we have cars which can run a thousand miles (or more) on a tank of fuel, people will consume more because, um... why, exactly? The key to lowering consumption, is to desgin technologies which themselves consume less. People will follow along accordingly, because there is an upper limit to how much a person can physically do.

You lack historical perspective just as much as you lack even the most rudimentary understanding of economics.

Apparently you still can't get your head out of your ass and understand what I'm saying. Stop living in the 50s, man.

If there was ONE company in the economy, that would be a good point. As it is, it's just stupid. And not only are there many corporations, there are freelancers, family business, drug dealers, ect, and all of them are part of capitalism. Capitalism is just what we call it when people exchange with each other freely.

So you're saying beacuse there are many centralized companies, the society itself is not centralized? That's ludicrous. Since this ?free market? doesn't have anti-monopoly laws (like most capitalist societies currently do), we would have a few corporations working together providing whatever services they control to each other. This society would eventually have one big company. Period.

You provided no reasons Golconda would keep workers in dark tiny apartments, but that didn't stop you. (But then, you seem to be under the impression that your mere assertion constitutes proof, or at least a powerful argument.)

The reasoning, was that their society would be inherently centralized, and that the people themselves would have little or no individual control over essential resources. They have to work constantly to pay for air, food and water, because Ares Corp has no obligation to make things easy for them, since Ares Corp controls all the resources. If Ares Corp didn't, there would be no reason to work for Ares Corp!

If the technology was there, I would live in my little self sufficient hab, and work for other people if I feel like it. But it's not, so I have to work for Ares Corp or whoever, and do their bidding, etc.

But the answer here is simple. First, Byron said, "essentially the whole city is one giant co-op." Not a bunch of little co-ops. So by initial stipulation, the economy is centrally planned.

That's silly. A co-op is basically a group of people working together for their own benefit, there is no implication that the group is centralized or not. Indeed, co-op says nothing about that group! They could be a co-op of capitalists! So don't be silly.

Second, what happens if someone sets up a stand with a big sign that says "Al's Hot Sauces", and uses it to sell hot sauces?

They can. Hot sauce, isn't really an essential commodity. Now if that guy (I assume his name is Al) decided to, say, create a sewer and make people pay to use it, people would laugh at him, since sewers are things the city shares.

Either some authority intervenes, or you admit capitalism and socialism is at an end. You might say it's not capitalism if it's just one guy. I say bollocks! It's capitalism whenever you have people buying and selling without interference.

No, it's not capitalism if natural monopolies are owned by the collective society. If the society makes it so that electricity, water, food, air, sewage, and other things of hygiene are publicly owned, it can't be called capitalism, no matter how much trade is allowed. We don't interfere with Al for selling hot sauce. Anyone could set up their own hot sauce stand. This is what we call free trade. We would only interfere if Al decided to take over the nuclear reactor and charged people to use it.

If you let it go, and people like the sauce, pretty soon he'll have a teenager working the register when he's cooking up new sauces or at home arguing with socialist tards over the Marsnet.

I doubt that Al will argue with anyone, because he won't have to deal with any monopolies (though he may be annoyed that he himself is unable to create a monopoly). If his hot sauce is good and at the right price, people will buy it. It's that simple. If it's not, someone else could create cheaper hot sauce which tastes just as good, or slightly not as good, but the price would compensate, etc.

Eventually you've got everyone in the system livening up their nutritional paste with Al's Premium Habanero Sauce.

Damn straight. I want some of Al's Hot Sauce, damnit.

I mean all economies without a free market. Now, what've you got in mind by "free trade"? If it's letting people buy and sell as they please (so long as they aren't selling their services as hitmen, or whatever), you'll certainly have no calculation problem, since you'll have an unfettered free market. It's just that you'll have thrown out everything you've been saying.

Well, that's bullshit. I never said anything about communism. I'm only talking about, and I've only been talking about, basic public ownership of essential commodities. Free trade cannot exist in a society where essential commodities (or the technology to acquire those commodities) are bartered like everything else.

I haven't thrown out anything of what I've been saying. And I don't think Byron's hypothetical has to be any different.

I suppose it will be easier in the future. But they can still do it now. And even with everything you've described, they won't, for pretty much the same reason I said to begin with, namely, they'd have less wealth than they would selling their crops.

Um, I can guarantee you that it would cost more for a farmer to buy his fuel than it would for him to grow it, you have to take into consideration the profit the gas stations make, and the money they have to pay out to their employes and so on. They would have less wealth if they were to grow more crops and sell it for fuel.

Really, you're showing how smart you are by going on about how ?wonderful? resource centralization is. Thanks for proving my points for me.

Uh, dude...
That's called capitalism.
You may not think much of it will happen. Heck, shipping costs will make sure not much of it will happen.
But it's called capitalism.
And unless somebody with a gun gets in the way, on each planet a lot of it will happen.

Uh, no it's not. Capitalism isn't ?just trading things.? It's ownership of capital. This includes essential commodities.

Here we have a typically leftist lack of understanding of human nature.

If you invoke your stupid human nature thing one more time I'm just going to stop responding to you. Human nature is undefined. Period. Read that thread I linked. The second page goes on about what ?human nature? is.

Abundant is a relative term.
I know exactly what situation you're describing, but unless somebody figures out how to make those replicators from Star Trek, it's never going to happen. People will simply ratchet up their demand. Unless supply is not merely abundant, but infinite, scarcity will continue.
They'll probably be slaving away nine to five so they can save up for something we can't even imagine yet.

Tsk. People will probably ratchet up demand, but as they do, we'll ratchet down consumption levels. People have a limit to how much they can do in any give time period. Most people don't even have anything and work their asses off to simply survive. If they were within a society where essential commodities were publicly available, I see no reason why they would consume more. They wouldn't even have to work. Survival will simply be a matter of hygiene.

In fact, it's the reverse. Golconda, being robustly capitalist, will have plenty.

Most of which would be owned by a central authority of a few dozen or so people, I'm sure.

Mariner, on the other hand, will have the best health care in the solar system and not enough food.

Tsk, you pretend like the Mariners will be unable to manage themselves, once the infrastructure is in place. Don't kid yourself, there's no ?protection mechinism? for capitalism.

And the processing I mentioned was this:

Oh yeah, well I don't see a need for processing, myself, but I don't see a problem with it. It's really no different than indentured servitude. Except there's a small matter of luck involved.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-12 18:01:26

clark;

Golconda exists to serve the needs of Ares- remember, Ares is interested in mining- and their financial incentive is to extract as many resources for as little as possible to reap the largest profit. Golconda is created by Ares to house their workers- why would Ares build extra habitat? What is the financial incentive? Rent to new settlers? Why? To what end? To farm and sell to others? Again, why would Glocanda willingly invite competition- it seems they could automate most of the farming (look at the number of farmers needed on Earth to feed the entire population). Ares will be responsible for providing food- which they can sell to the workers on Mars- if venture farmers set up shop, then Ares no longer has a monopoly, which reduces their ability to recoup the cost of farming, or even the profit margin they would have enjoyed minus the competition.

Here you seem to be deciding that Ares will keep everyone else out of Golconda. But that's not what the scenario says. It says anyone who can pay his way across is welcome. Therefore the above is wrong.

There's no reason Ares would have to be the one to do the building. Bricks are cheap. Building an extension to an existing settlement should be easier than starting from scratch. The new settlers, I said, would be growing their own food. Why would Ares object? You may think otherwise, but it's already been stipulated that you're wrong, by Byron:

The philosphy of Ares Corp and [Golconda] is simple: If you can pay your own way, you can come.

Again, the vices are rather wishful thinking since the cost would be prohibitive for most people- the prostitutes won't have enough of a client base to make any kind of money- bars and gambling? Perhaps, but to what end really?

To what end for whom? Ares? You seem to want to restrict Golconda to nothing but Ares, but we've already seen that if other people (or groups of people) can afford the trip, Ares isn't going to stop them.

Life support will be expensive because machines are required for all necessary components for life to exist on mars. Air is not free- it must be manufactured, and energy is required to produce it. Power is not free, and a great deal of it will be required for any space venture- all of which costs money. Water must be manufactured; processed- all of which takes power, and costs money.

"Is not free" and "is expensive" are not the same thing.

You know I am right

If that were the case, I would be a liar for arguing the contrary. Do you want to accuse me of being a liar?

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-12 21:31:47

Josh;

That's the thing, you haven't even given a real world analysis. You've just spouted garbage, without considering the advancements society will have.

Quite the contrary: since you're a fool, real world analysis looks like garbage to you.

Indeed, you laughably think we have resource surpluses now, when most of humanity is starving.

According to the UN World Population Fund, the population was 6 billion in 1999. By now, of course, it would be higher. According Bread for the World, which gets its statistics from the UN, there are 840 million people sufferening from malnutrition in the world. Even assuming, for the sake of being charitable toward fools, that each of these are actually starving, that's roughly one seventh (if I entered it in the calculator right). But of course that assumption would be wrong. To be malnurished is to have less food than is healthy. To be starving to being dying from a lack of food. (In fact, "starve" comes from an Anglo-Saxon word that means "die", and there are a few dialects in northern England where starving is freezing to death.)

So what was that you said? Oh yeah, "You are the dishonest one here, or highly misinformed."

So which are you? Dishonest, or highly misinformed?

Tsk. Capitalism doesn't mean free trade. On the contrary. Capitalism can't even function without regulation, otherwise you have a few monopolies, and the concept of ?free trade? becomes completely foreign. Capitalism is just a term for the practice of monopolistic consumption.

More dogmatic stupidity. This stuff has been refuted for decades now.

BTW, according to dictionary.com, the definition of capitalism is, "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." So you're wrong even about that.

No, supply is getting better, but technologically, we aren't there by any means. Most of the world is starving; due largely in part to corporations ?exhibiting their free trade? on small nations.

I'll pass up asking how something can be due largely in part, and repeat that most of the world is not starving.

Okay, so, basically, you're saying that if we have cars which can run a thousand miles (or more) on a tank of fuel, people will consume more because, um... why, exactly?

Here again we see your lack of basic economic sense. If cars got a thousand miles a gallon, they'd spend the money on something else. And thanks to technology, there will be plenty more to spend it on.

The key to lowering consumption, is to desgin technologies which themselves consume less. People will follow along accordingly, because there is an upper limit to how much a person can physically do.

That would lower consumption of natural resources (not that envirnmentalists will ever stop whining), but not consumption the economic sense, that is, consumption of goods or services. Of course you're right that there's a limit to how much a person can do in a day. It's also true that the more advanced technology is, the more time it saves, except entertainment, which is meant to kill time. Plus there's a virtually limitless path to spending more, buying fancier versions of the same things you were already buying.

So what we can expect is, more money, more time, and more stuff to blow it on. Consumer capitalism, only more so.

Face it, given a choice between techno-autarky and big time consumerism, we both know what most people are going to do.

So you're saying beacuse there are many centralized companies, the society itself is not centralized? That's ludicrous.

No, it's obvious.

The reasoning, was that their society would be inherently centralized, and that the people themselves would have little or no individual control over essential resources. They have to work constantly to pay for air, food and water, because Ares Corp has no obligation to make things easy for them, since Ares Corp controls all the resources. If Ares Corp didn't, there would be no reason to work for Ares Corp!

But there's already so reason to work for Ares. I can stay right where I am. Therefore, Ares will have to make working for them attractive. I already pointed this out.

That's silly. A co-op is basically a group of people working together for their own benefit, there is no implication that the group is centralized or not. Indeed, co-op says nothing about that group! They could be a co-op of capitalists! So don't be silly.

You're the one being silly, fool. First, other than total chaos, there are two options, planning and the market. Of course, planning merely delays chaos. But without even that, everyone's efforts will be uncoordinated.

They're building a big dome, right? There's got to be a plan for it to come together.

About the hot sauce, here's you've invented a bogus distinction between necessary and unnecessary goods.But the distinction is foreign to economics; either way, it's all demand, and all demand is equal.

You've also undermined yourself. First, you've been asserting we'll all be self-sufficient. But now you say it's all be from the "collective society". Well, which is it?

Well, that's bullshit. I never said anything about communism. I'm only talking about, and I've only been talking about, basic public ownership of essential commodities. Free trade cannot exist in a society where essential commodities (or the technology to acquire those commodities) are bartered like everything else.

Well, it quite obviously exists now, so you're wrong.

And public ownership of only "essential" commodities, however defined, is just as unworkable as full communism. Businesses cannot be properly managed without market inputs.

And let's not forget, the essential resources will be centralized under public control. Oh my!

Um, I can guarantee you that it would cost more for a farmer to buy his fuel than it would for him to grow it, you have to take into consideration the profit the gas stations make, and the money they have to pay out to their employes and so on. They would have less wealth if they were to grow more crops and sell it for fuel.

You know, of course, that crops can also be used for food, right? And that farmers will be buying things other than just fuel? If the most economically sensible way for farmers to get fuel is to grow it, that's exactly what they'll do. And then they'll sell the rest of their crops for a profit.

Uh, no it's not. Capitalism isn't ?just trading things.? It's ownership of capital. This includes essential commodities.

Of course capitalism is just trading things. Capital just happens to be one of those things. Duh!

If you invoke your stupid human nature thing one more time I'm just going to stop responding to you.

I'm scared. The moron will stop posting his tripe to me.

Hey, genius, let's quote, say, you: "People will follow along accordingly, because there is an upper limit to how much a person can physically do." Now what imposes this limit? The physical capabilities of the body? Sounds like a fact of biology, which is to say, nature. In fact, your whole argument that everyone will jump at the chance to be autarkic rests on the assuption that under a given set of circumstances, human behavior will be predictable; if it were otherwise, your whole argument is rendered giberish before we even get to analyzing the circumstances and whether people would indeed react as you predict. But unless human nature exists, the assuption is wrong.

You yourself appeal to human nature without being aware of it. It exists. Deal with it.

Most people don't even have anything and work their asses off to simply survive. If they were within a society where essential commodities were publicly available, I see no reason why they would consume more. They wouldn't even have to work. Survival will simply be a matter of hygiene.

Which rests on the assumption that survival is the only reason people would work, which is an assumption about human nature. It happens to be wrong.

Most of which would be owned by a central authority of a few dozen or so people, I'm sure.

No, that how socialism works.

Oh, wait, you just want the central authority to own the essential resources, like air. Now there's a recipe for freedom.

Tsk, you pretend like the Mariners will be unable to manage themselves, once the infrastructure is in place.

There's no pretending required. Inability to manage is an inherent feature of socialism.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-13 02:46:20

So which are you? Dishonest, or highly misinformed?

Well, I guess I can admit I chose the wrong words. I probably should have said most of the world is poor. My problem is trusting colloquialism in argument, when I know that the person I am arguing with is anal retentive, and requires exacting precision.

But of course, I wasn't actually wrong by using the word. The word ?starve? doesn't necessarily reflect physical nutritional requirements. It could be a whole variety of things. ?Ghana is resource starved because other countries exploit its climate to grow one resource [chocolate], depriving the locals of a fair ammount of resources. The locals, so poor, are unable to afford even chocolate, the primary resource they grow there.? A perfectly valid assertion.

Indeed. Looking at the facts, it's quite obvious that most of the world is starving [obviously from a wealth / resource perspective].

0.1% of people own 23% of the worlds wealth. Another 1% own 33% of the worlds wealth. So, laughably, more than half of the worlds wealth is owned by 1.1% of humanity. 8% of the worlds wealth is owned by 28% of people (probably mostly first worlders). 3% of the worlds wealth is owned by 6%. 13% of the worlds wealth is owned by only 50% of people. And, not so shockingly, ?only? .1% of the worlds wealth is owned by 35% of the global population.

It would be interesting to take the .1% of people and put them in the conditions the 35% live in. Then distribute that wealth accordingly throughout the 85%.

Here's a source: http://www.gritty.org/Pages/GrittyBook/ … overty.pdf

I'm confident it's accurate.

So what was that you said? Oh yeah, "You are the dishonest one here, or highly misinformed."
So which are you? Dishonest, or highly misinformed?

Honest, and informed, as I've shown. Your rhetoric doesn't go very far with me. Although it has shown to be a great waste of time.

So you're wrong even about [the definition of capitalism].

Tsk, it's not my fault the dictionary thinks monopolies are equitable to free trade. If capitalism were such a great harbinger of free trade, why is it that every capitalistic society has created laws which are inherently anti-monopoly? Even the United States, the greatest capitalist country in the world, is socialistic to an extent!

I'll pass up asking how something can be due largely in part, and repeat that most of the world is not starving.

This is why you must get your head out of your ass. Saying something doesn't make it true, remember.

Here again we see your lack of basic economic sense. If cars got a thousand miles a gallon, they'd spend the money on something else. And thanks to technology, there will be plenty more to spend it on.

Um, the point is that they won't be consuming more with regards to fuel consumption. Now, expand that to all technologies, and people simply won't consume more. Sure, they'll go out and buy fancy new things, but there are only so many light sockets they can use.

That would lower consumption of natural resources (not that envirnmentalists will ever stop whining), but not consumption the economic sense, that is, consumption of goods or services.

There is absolutely no evidence that people will continue to be mindless consumers. Indeed, technological consolidation will fullfill most peoples needs automatically. Instead of people carrying around portable PCs, cell phones, camreas, and so on, they will have all-in-one devices. Devices which are proven to be so efficient, that a dozen could run on the same sort of energy requirements. The fact that 85% of the worlds population is so poor, I'm sure they would gladly be happy using these devices.

This is actually already happening. Look at cell phones. They're camreas, PCs, and internet web browsers all in one. The cost, of course, is relatively high, but the overall utility is worth it to a lot of people.

Plus there's a virtually limitless path to spending more, buying fancier versions of the same things you were already buying.
So what we can expect is, more money, more time, and more stuff to blow it on. Consumer capitalism, only more so.

Oh, well, there's obviously an upper limit to what kinds of technology is possible. So clearly spending will eventually have to stop. If you really think that we can continue creating shiney things that are better and better, you have got to be kidding yourself. All we can expect is physics will kick in, and people will all have the same or similar devices, completely customizable of course, capable of doing the same or similar things.

Now sure, I don't deny that there will be new innovations (new shiney things with a different purpose). But this is largely a non-issue, in my mind; the free market exists within socialism.

Face it, given a choice between techno-autarky and big time consumerism, we both know what most people are going to do.

Assuming they take the consumption path; overall, their consumption will be lower. Despite the fact that they'll be techno-gluttons, and spend most of their time tapped into the internet or something, playing virtual reality sex games. Hopefully all people won't be this pathetic, but I'm sure some of them will.

People won't really have a choice, between heavy resource consumption or not. Considering that they would be bound by the efficiency of society. It would cost so much to be inefficient, no one would do it.

At least you agree with me on one thing. Technology will become increasingly advanced.

But there's already so reason to work for Ares. I can stay right where I am. Therefore, Ares will have to make working for them attractive. I already pointed this out.

Hah! Then you have no love of Mars. I and my ?pinko? ways would work for the despot known as Ares Corp. The most likely scenario (assuming, of course, the whole hypothetical is even feasible) is that people won't even know what's in store for them. It'll be a situation like, ?Go to Mars! Make thousands! Come home from the adventure of a lifetime!?

You wouldn't go, maybe, because you need more than that simple slogon to push you along. I, on the other hand, would not, Mars has that much appeal to me. Then maybe after I went, we could overthrow Ares Corp and create a utopia! But really, I would go just for the experience, even if it meant living in a libertarian despot where I could die any minute.

About the hot sauce, here's you've invented a bogus distinction between necessary and unnecessary goods.But the distinction is foreign to economics; either way, it's all demand, and all demand is equal.

What's the point of an economy where ?all demand is equal? if the supporting structure (remember, capitalism is inherently centralized- hundreds of thousands of people support those above them) fails? The whole economy collaspes.

I would argue that all demand is not equal. And that any necessary requirements shouldnot be part of the market at all. Of course, that's socialism, but you fail to understand that, over and over again.

You've also undermined yourself. First, you've been asserting we'll all be self-sufficient. But now you say it's all be from the "collective society". Well, which is it?

Nah, I haven't undermined myself. I've said before that belonging to a collective is more secure. Even you said (to clark) that it would be easier for people to build on to Golconda. Indeed, belonging to a colony has many benefits, both for the colonizers and the colony itself. You ought to read the other things I've said on this subject, rather than becoming a little hissy.

I still assert that self sufficiency can be possible for a small group, or even an individual. If you want, we can get into the design of a hab that could realistically support one person indefinitely.

Well, [free trade] quite obviously exists now, so you're wrong.

Um, the free market is quite regulated in our society. Though it may not be on all levels, it certainly is on a lot. Of course, you're probably associating ?free trade? with international trade, like you did before. But I don't blame you for doing it again.

And public ownership of only "essential" commodities, however defined, is just as unworkable as full communism. Businesses cannot be properly managed without market inputs.

Um, this comment is quite incoherent. I don't know what you mean about business being properly managed with market inputs. Certainly there is nothing stopping people from managing their own groups resources.

And let's not forget, the essential resources will be centralized under public control. Oh my!

Hmm, at least my justifications are implied or derivable. You just make random comments without justification. Exactly why must these essential resources be centralized under public control?

And, no, I'm sorry, comments like, ?That's the nature of socialism.? in actuality only apply to capitalism.

You know, of course, that crops can also be used for food, right? And that farmers will be buying things other than just fuel?

Lord man, where does this pointless drivel come from? Can't you at least argue valid points rather than replying to everything I say? I obviously know this, and I never implied that farmers will not be buying things other than just fuel. I just think this issome ego trip for you, because you clearly are beginning to not want a reasoned argument.

If the most economically sensible way for farmers to get fuel is to grow it, that's exactly what they'll do. And then they'll sell the rest of their crops for a profit.

Hey, we agree. Farmers don't have the technology to grow their own fuel yet, and even then, the alcohol tax is in their way (one which was created byoil lobbyists, of course). So it's currently not economically sensible way for farmers to function. They simply don't have the resources.

I'm scared. The moron will stop posting his tripe to me.

Tsk, it's actually quite enjoyable. Talking to right-wingers, though exhausting, is fullfilling, when you know you're right and they're wrong.

I just mean that I'll ignore your ?human nature? bullshit. I'm sure, that, according to you, it's ?human nature? for more than half of a societies wealth to be distributed to 1% of the population.

But unless human nature exists, the assuption is wrong.

Um, so, okay, the nature of being human is being human. Being human is defined by your environment. So human nature is defined by your environment. So human nature is undefined; I wasn't saying that human nature ?doesn't exist.?

But I hardly think it's any more remarkable than the nature of any other being with a central nervous system. We're all programmed by our environment, except for a few instinctual functions (like for some animals, the ablity to walk after birth).

You yourself appeal to human nature without being aware of it. It exists. Deal with it.

Um, no, I appeal to my environment, which is dynamic and changes over time. I am not the same person I was even a momment ago. Indeed, as each second passes, a version of me ceases to exist. Human nature is the act of appealing to that environment.

This is why so many elitist cultures think that their version of society is ?human nature.? Because they think that they way they do things is how all humans do things. This is a laughable world view, and one day we'll probably stop having it.

I only think that under certain constraints, there are only few paths society can go. I don't think this approach is misguided.

Which rests on the assumption that survival is the only reason people would work, which is an assumption about human nature. It happens to be wrong.

Actually, no, it's quite accurate. People [in a capitalist society] work to survive at a what they consider an acceptable cultural level. This, of course, isn't an assumption about human nature, this is merely an observation of consumerism.

No, [centralization is] how socialism works.

No, you're simply wrong. Remember, A.J., saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

There's no pretending required. Inability to manage is an inherent feature of socialism.

Stalinism, maybe. But not socialism.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-14 01:13:48

Josh;

Sure, they'll go out and buy fancy new things

Therefore capitalism will continue. I win.

Um, this comment is quite incoherent. I don't know what you mean about business being properly managed with market inputs.

Just because you're to ignorant to understand what I said doesn't mean it's incoherent. The "market inputs" are inputs of information. The interaction of supply and demand in a free market creates the market price. The market price is the only way of matching supply with demand.

You just make random comments without justification.

You're projecting, Josh. As far as I can determine, you've got no coherent picture of what you want, just anything that isn't capitalism. So sometimes it's techno-autarky, where everyone does everything for himself, but now it's a mostly capitalist mixed economy with some "essential" resources provided publically.

Exactly why must these essential resources be centralized under public control?
And, no, I'm sorry, comments like, ?That's the nature of socialism.? in actuality only apply to capitalism.

1) So under capitalism essential resources are centralized under public control? The government providing food is capitalism? Must you redefine every word in the English language? Your attempt at twisting "starve" was bad enough; pretty soon you'll redefine "if" and "the".

2) It is the nature of socialism. If you've ruled out profit-seeking guided by market prices, the only way it's ever going to be organized is the Essential Resources Planning Commission. The idea that everyone will just do what needs done, on their own, isn't very realistic.

Talking to right-wingers, though exhausting, is fullfilling, when you know you're right and they're wrong.

The supply of closed-minded, economically ignorant rants won't dry up. I'm thrilled.

Being human is defined by your environment. So human nature is defined by your environment... We're all programmed by our environment, except for a few instinctual functions (like for some animals, the ablity to walk after birth).

Unless there were something consistent for the environment to act on, it couldn't "program" in any remotely predictable way.

This is why so many elitist cultures think that their version of society is ?human nature.? Because they think that they way they do things is how all humans do things.

1) If you think your way of doing things is the only way anybody does it, what's there to be elitist about? "My culture is better than yours" presupposes a difference.

2) If you were really in a culture that cut off from outside contact, you wouldn't even really notice your customs any more than a fish notices water. It's only when you come in contact with other cultures that you notice your own culture. At the same time, you'll notice that the others are different, and yet clearly like yourself; there must be some things common to man as such, and other things that are merely conventional. Thus is the concept of human nature born.

Actually, no, it's quite accurate. People [in a capitalist society] work to survive at a what they consider an acceptable cultural level.

Those are what we call weasel words. "At a what they consider an acceptable cultural level" sucks all the meaning out of "survive". So if someone lives at home and gets free food from his parents, and works so he has money for going out on the weekends, he's really working for survival -- at an accepted cultural level, that is.

I don't think you'll even notice what you've done. You've redefined survival from a matter of life to a matter of lifestyle. But, that people work for the lifestyle they prefer, and not just survival, was MY point. You've capitulated.

Stalinism, maybe. But not socialism.

Yes, socialism.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-14 01:49:22

This has gone way off topic.

Here's a scary, somewhat on-topic thought:

A Scientologist colony.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-11-09 08:05:35

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#2 2002-11-10 22:35:25

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#3 2002-11-10 23:32:45

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#4 2002-11-11 00:54:19

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#5 2002-11-11 01:47:00

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#6 2002-11-11 03:47:21

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#7 2002-11-11 17:33:32

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#8 2002-11-11 19:07:09

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#9 2002-11-11 20:29:06

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#10 2002-11-11 20:33:33

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#11 2002-11-12 00:47:37

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#12 2002-11-12 01:55:18

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#13 2002-11-12 03:32:54

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#14 2002-11-12 04:10:10

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#15 2002-11-12 04:23:13

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#16 2002-11-12 13:01:59

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#17 2002-11-12 16:33:37

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#18 2002-11-12 16:53:15

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#19 2002-11-12 17:26:33

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#20 2002-11-12 17:51:15

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#21 2002-11-12 18:01:26

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#22 2002-11-12 21:31:47

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#23 2002-11-13 02:46:20

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#24 2002-11-14 01:13:48

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#25 2002-11-14 01:49:22

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

Board footer