The Difficult Ones

louis · 2021-04-27 19:10:58

The Difficult One - I'm quoting a Monty Python* book from the 1970s there, which was referencing what used to be called the Sin of Onan...(I don't think they will get anywhere trying to ban that on Mars!).

[*UK comedy show that most people in the US and English speaking world know about.]

Yes, this is a thread devoted to addressing the really difficult issues - not how the hell do you get a rocket to work properly (that's relatively easy) but how on Earth/Mars do you get human beings to work together in something like genuine harmony.

Humans are social primates, given to violent reactions, hysterical group behaviour and constant status battles. So it's not easy to establish harmony.

[For the purposes of this thread, let's restrict discussion to the first 10 years of human settlement. ]

Here are some of the issues that I think need to be addressed:

- General point - what is the status of a "rule" on Mars. Supposing it's Space X who gets there first - most likely, Musk can make up any rules he likes but what status do the rules have? Do they have higher status than the constitutional liberties of an American for instance? Does the act of leaving Earth rob the individual of their constitutional rights? Oldfart has talked about a command structure for a Mars Mission. Well yes - but was is the legal basis for that command structure?

- Sexual relations. Will they be allowed officially? If so, to what extent. It's easy on Earth to say "any consenting sexual relations are allowed" but in the close confines of a small base this could be problematic. Noisy "rough" sex or SM style sex could create problems. And in the very early stages of colonisation the risk that sexual jealousy could disrupt team efficiency is very real. Should we be thinking in terms of creating sex habs where those who wish to release their sexual urges can go and enjoy themselves?

- Pregnancy/abortion. What happens if a woman gets pregnant as a result of a permitted or unpermitted relationship? Can anyone stop her going to full term? How would you stop her even if that were permitted? Alternatively should you be able to facilitate her abortion even if the woman was being pressurised into abortion?

- Drugs including alcohol. How far would people be allowed to indulge in these on Mars? Drugs have been an intimate and many might say vital part of the human experience since (or before) we climbed out of the trees. All sorts of animals including elephants enjoy getting off their heads on fermented fruit. Are we going to abandon thousands of years of drug-induced creativity (nearly all musicians, writers and artitists - if not scientists - have been attracted to drugs over the millennia)?

- Free speech. How far will free speech apply on Mars? In the armed forces such a constitutional right is extremely restricted. I expect people who see Mars colonisation as a command structure operation will want to restrict free speech. Alternatively those who see it as a collaborative civilian endeavour will want to preserve it, as vital to the whole enterprise. I'd like to suggest that what needs to be put in place is strong procedures that protect free speech but, as it were, channel it. The Apollo Missions had a strong free speech tradition going in NASA - now long gone. The permissive idea was that anyone could speak up and offer their opinion (you can see how valuable that is when everything being attempted is new). I think we need to aim for something like that and ensure that if someone prevented from expressing an idea there is strong and meaningful appeal process in place (including maybe submissions back to a panel on Earth).

- Diversity. On Earth nearly all organisations now claim to be in favour of diversity but how does that translate to Mars? The very early pioneers on Mars will, of necessity, be essentially an elite - people with a range of very high level skills, with strong intellect and integrated emotions ("the right stuff"). To what extent should Space X be looking to ensure racial and gender diversity among the pioneers? Should Space X actually look to replicate the spread of IQ on Earth, or the USA? This is a very tricky area. If you want to truly represent humanity, then one in 4 pioneers will be Chinese nationals, not Americans! Obviously Space X would not go down that route. I think we have to accept there are just going to be a lot of compromises here - essentially in the initial choices a culture (modern US culture) is going to be represented. To take Noah's 8 pioneers I think with an 8 person mission you might have 6 US citizens. The ideal non-Ameicans would be an Indian and a South African (of colour). You will have to have at least three women but probably 4. There must be at least one gay male person and one lesbian. At least one person must be African-American and it would be nice to have someone who can claim to be part Native American more convincingly than some US Presidential candidates . You'd probably have a Chinese American and Indian American as well as part of the US citizen contingent/ At least one person should have some sort of observable disability e.g. a withered arm that doesn't affect their contribution to the mission too much.

Any observations on the above or any other "difficult ones" that people want to discuss?

Last edited by louis (2021-04-27 19:12:02)

tahanson43206 · 2021-04-27 20:42:21

Best wishes for success with this (to me fascinating) new topic!

(th)

RobertDyck · 2021-04-27 22:12:17

I feel Mars must be the Libertarian Paradise. The whole point of moving to Mars is to tell government where to shove it! So my list:

Sex: do what you will. No restrictions. Casual affair? Extra-marital sex? Polygamy? Same-sex marriage? Whatever! That's between individuals involved. No government, and no rules. After all, who the hell do you think you are telling others who or how they can engage in sex?
Abortion: a woman's body is her own. No one can tell a woman what to do with her body. I could give a long winded lecture. I'll make this short: when I was a teenager in the late 1970s, this was a major issue in Canada. I looked into it. (I'm a nerd, I research stuff.) The thing that makes humans unique (different than animals) is our mind. That's a function of the brain. The Cerebrum is the thinking portion, it doesn't start to function until after birth. When I first researched this in the late 1970s, medical knowledge said it starts to function 3 months after birth. Today doctors have found it can start to function as early as 2 weeks after birth. But it cannot function before birth, because any interconnections between cells (dendrites/axons) would be torn asunder by the baby's head being squeezed through the birth canal. So a human life starts at birth, not before. Before birth the fetus is tissue. Sorry religious fanatics, but that's the science.
Drugs and alcohol: do what you will. It's your body, you can do whatever you want. That means alcohol, marijuana, and even hard drugs will be legal. Prescriptions drugs could be purchased without a doctor's prescription. Of course there won't be free medical care, so if you screw yourself up, you have to pay for it. And if you show up to work either drunk or high, that's grounds for summary dismissal. That's a fancy word for you're fired on the spot, no warning. Your employer could choose to give you a warning, but it's up to him/her, not required.

Of course I have advocated a very minimal "national" government for Mars. Basic rule: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, other than that you're pretty much on your own dude! Of course there will be details: assault, battery, assault with a weapon, murder, attempted murder, theft, robbery, extortion, embezzlement, etc. Once you get lawyers involved, something that was simple becomes complex. But you get the point. The national government will also have a land title registry: you buy land from them. Any land not owned is free for anyone to harvest. Once owned, it's owned, need I say more? No "countries" allowed on Mars, because the national government is the only country. One nation that is the whole planet. No states, provinces, counties, shires, principality, duchy, or oblast. The last is roughly equivalent to a county in countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. Municipalities will be allowed on Mars, but only that. Municipalities can be various size: village, town, city. The municipality will have to request land from the national government's land title registry. If a municipality attempts to claim as much land as a state or county, the answer will be "NO". A town will be given as much land as a town. A small city (in terms of population) will be given as much land as a small city. A large city will be given as much land as a city that size. If an individual purchases land for a homestead from the national government land title registry, then a municipality attempts to expand to include that land, the answer will be "NO". Once someone owns land, no one else can claim it. The land owner could sell to the municipality, but if the municipality attempts extortion outside municipal boundaries, then national police will step in to stop them.

Free Speech & Diversity:
I mention this because municipalities will have a great deal of authority. Within the very limited boundaries of their municipality, they will for most purposes be a City State. Free Speech and Diversity will be up to the municipality. Of course those rules will only have jurisdiction within municipal boundaries. Outside that, diddly squat!

Anywhere on Mars outside a municipality: say what you want. Be what you are.

Sex, Drugs, Abortion could be restricted within a municipality as well.

For any homestead registered with / purchased from the national government land title registry: the only laws that apply are national. And those are minimal. Zero tax. The land owner really is the lord of his/her own property. And expect the land owner to have really big guns to enforce that authority.

Guns: municipalities will not be allowed to possess a military. And will not be allowed to possess weapons of war: no fighter jets, no tanks, no mortars, to land mines, no surface-to-air missiles, no missiles of any sort, no cannons, no fully automatic firearms. But municipal police can possess a revolver, or semi-automatic pistol, or shotgun, or semi-automatic rifle. Whether police possess such or are restricted to non-lethal weapons will be up to the municipality. Whether individuals within a municipality are allowed to possess weapons will be up to the municipality. Restrictions for individuals in a homestead in the "outback" will be exactly the same as a municipality. Yes, that does mean a homesteader could possess all the same weapons as police of a major city.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2021-04-28 17:35:15)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-04-28 16:46:05

I just reread Rob's previous statement; I think he meant LAWYERS, and NOT LAYERS. I'll delete this comment after he responds.

louis · 2021-04-28 17:17:08

I have a lot of sympathies with your sympathies but I'd make the following points:

1. Does the right to have sex include having sex in a way that intrudes upon others e.g. having sex in public, having very loud sex etc.? This could certainly be an issue in the early years of a colony where people are living very closely together, with maybe just curtained off sleeping areas. Also, the issue of consent can become blurred. If you have a hierarchical structure, will it be permissible for the Commanding Officer or Mission Leader to have relations with other subordinate crew members?

2. I think pregnancy is the bigger issue than abortion. If a woman becomes pregnant and refuses to abort her foetus/child then that could represent a very serious threat to the mission, certainly Mission One. Essentially you could be losing a team member for some vital tasks but you would also face what could amount to a medical emergency. What if the woman is going to give birth just at the time you are ready to launch the return Starship? Even after Mission One, it's going to be a difficult issue to address until we know for sure that foetuses can develop normally in the womb on Mars (highly questionable that will be the case in low G).

3. Drugs and alcohol...the difference here is that everyone in a pressurised environment is much more vulnerable. That's one of the reasons why we treat drunkness on an airplane differently from drunkeness on the street or in a bar. We are far less tolerant of inebriation on an airplane, even though we do allow alcohol to be consumed. There have been plenty of examples of people off their heads on drink and/or drugs trying to open the cabin door at 30,000 feet. Similarly someone might try and open an airlock.

For me, these issues really mean that Space X will need to devise employment contracts that as far as they can address these issues. For instance I think they should specify that no employee will become pregnant while on Mars or seek to make someone pregnant while on Mars. They will probably have to plead some sort of constitutional exception...similar to that which applies to the military if the contracts are ever challenged in the US courts. But the main lesson is to ensure that every effort is put into team selection.

Regarding say drugs and alcohol, rather than seek out teetotallers I think I would be happier with finding people who do indulge in psychoactive substances but who have demonstrated that even while under influence they remain relatively responsible and under control.

Issues like sexual behaviour could probably be subsumed under more general rules on neighbourly behaviour.

Of course none of the above addresses the issue I raised as to what status any rules, contracts or other attempted controls on behaviour have on Mars. Space X could presumably declare that they are operating under OST rules, US laws or their own rules (in the absence of effective state authority on the planet).

RobertDyck wrote:

I feel Mars must be the Libertarian Paradise. The whole point of moving to Mars is to tell government where to shove it! So my list:
Sex: do what you will. No restrictions. Casual affair? Extra-marital sex? Polygamy? Same-sex marriage? Whatever! That's between individuals involved. No government, and no rules. After all, who the hell do you think you are telling others who or how they can engage in sex?
Abortion: a woman's body is her own. No one can tell a woman what to do with her body. I could give a long winded lecture. I'll make this short: when I was a teenager in the late 1970s, this was a major issue in Canada. I looked into it. (I'm a nerd, I research stuff.) The thing that makes humans unique (different than animals) is our mind. That's a function of the brain. The Cerebrum is the thinking portion, it doesn't start to function until after birth. When I first researched this in the late 1970s, medical knowledge said it starts to function 3 months after birth. Today doctors have found it can start to function as early as 2 weeks after birth. But it cannot function before birth, because any interconnections between cells (dendrites/axons) would be torn asunder by the baby's head being squeezed through the birth canal. So a human life starts at birth, not before. Before birth the fetus is tissue. Sorry religious fanatics, but that's the science.
Drugs and alcohol: do what you will. It's your body, you can do whatever you want. That means alcohol, marijuana, and even hard drugs will be legal. Prescriptions drugs could be purchased without a doctor's prescription. Of course there won't be free medical care, so if you screw yourself up, you have to pay for it. And if you show up to work either drunk or high, that's grounds for summary dismissal. That's a fancy word for you're fired on the spot, no warning. Your employer could choose to give you a warning, but it's up to him/her, not required.
Of course I have advocated a very minimal "national" government for Mars. Basic rule: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, other than that you're pretty much on your own dude! Of course there will be details: assault, battery, assault with a weapon, murder, attempted murder, theft, robbery, extortion, embezzlement, etc. Once you get layers involved, something that was simple becomes complex. But you get the point. The national government will also have a land title registry: you buy land from them. Any land not owned is free for anyone to harvest. Once owned, it's owned, need I say more? No "countries" allowed on Mars, because the national government is the only country. One nation that is the whole planet. No states, provinces, counties, shires, principality, duchy, or oblast. The last is roughly equivalent to a county in countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. Municipalities will be allowed on Mars, but only that. Municipalities can be various size: village, town, city. The municipality will have to request land from the national government's land title registry. If a municipality attempts to claim as much land as a state or county, the answer will be "NO". A town will be given as much land as a town. A small city (in terms of population) will be given as much land as a small city. A large city will be given as much land as a city that size. If an individual purchases land for a homestead from the national government land title registry, then a municipality attempts to expand to include that land, the answer will be "NO". Once someone owns land, no one else can claim it. The land owner could sell to the municipality, but if the municipality attempts extortion outside municipal boundaries, then national police will step in to stop them.
Free Speech & Diversity:
I mention this because municipalities will have a great deal of authority. Within the very limited boundaries of their municipality, they will for most purposes be a City State. Free Speech and Diversity will be up to the municipality. Of course those rules will only have jurisdiction within municipal boundaries. Outside that, diddly squat!
Anywhere on Mars outside a municipality: say what you want. Be what you are.
Sex, Drugs, Abortion could be restricted within a municipality as well.
For any homestead registered with / purchased from the national government land title registry: the only laws that apply are national. And those are minimal. Zero tax. The land owner really is the lord of his/her own property. And expect the land owner to have really big guns to enforce that authority.
Guns: municipalities will not be allowed to possess a military. And will not be allowed to possess weapons of war: no fighter jets, no tanks, no mortars, to land mines, no surface-to-air missiles, no missiles of any sort, no cannons, no fully automatic firearms. But municipal police can possess a revolver, or semi-automatic pistol, or shotgun, or semi-automatic rifle. Whether police possess such or are restricted to non-lethal weapons will be up to the municipality. Whether individuals within a municipality are allowed to possess weapons will be up to the municipality. Restrictions for individuals in a homestead in the "outback" will be exactly the same as a municipality. Yes, that does mean a homesteader could possess all the same weapons as police of a major city.

SpaceNut · 2021-04-28 17:41:36

The big issue for space and mars is that if you are incapacitated that you have lost the rights to remain as there is no welfare programs to support you....

RobertDyck · 2021-04-28 18:01:31

Clip from the Movie "The Secret of My Success" (1987). Click image for YouTube video (2 minutes).

SpaceNut · 2021-04-28 18:12:10

This might work for some
il_794xN.2907937107_2ocx.jpg

or maybe this one.

il_794xN.2358929323_c87z.jpg

Can we be adults in the early stages....

RobertDyck · 2021-04-28 18:24:55

louis,
Are we talking about first exploration mission, with say 8 crew? Or settlement with 1,000 people or more? Big difference. I'm talking later settlement with at least one city and multiple towns.

Mars Direct includes individual cabins, with walls. Of course that was for 4 crew. Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) is a simulation with cabins for 6 crew. Basically 3 bunk beds, with each bunk sealed off into a very small cabin. MDRS has a domed roof, above the cabins there's a loft for a caretaker to sleep. Of course my criticism of MDRS is that it makes full use of both floors (decks). For a real Mars hab, lower deck would be mostly sold equipment. But the point is these walls do provide some sound insulation.

Pregnancy: exploration crew will have to be selected for individuals sufficiently professional that they won't get pregnant. Yes, I'm putting responsibility on everyone involved. But for permanent settlement, even the first one-way crew, pregnancy will be a big deal and very welcome.

Drugs an alcohol: you realize Russians somehow managed to smuggle vodka onto the Mir space station. The first American astronaut to spend 6 months on Mir, Shannon Lucid, found during the time cosmonauts were supposed to be exercising, they were drinking. Cosmonauts had to be carried out of their Soyuz capsule on return to Earth, but Shannon was able to walk off Shuttle and take an inspection walk around the Shuttle after landing. It became such an issue that Russians provided food tubes (look like toothpaste tubes) labelled vodka but actually contained borscht. I wouldn't be surprised if someone smuggled vodka onto ISS. They still get their job done.

louis · 2021-04-28 18:34:49

As I suggested earlier in the thread - it would be best initially to restrict the discussion to the first 10 years. You must have missed that.

But even with a later settlement of 1000 people plus these issues will still be around. It's going to take at least a couple of decades before we can be sure how safe it is to take pregnancies to full term on Mars. But we could well have 1000 people on Mars within 10-15 years.

The most important central issue is "Under whose authority are rules being made?" If the answer is "Under the authority of the US Constitution" that gives you one set of answers (essentially - the rules that apply in the USA, also apply to the people on Mars). If the answer is "Space X make the rules" that will lead to some interesting debates. If the answer is "The rules comply with the OST and that is all that is required because the OST is the only set of rules that currently apply to Mars" then that is another ball game.

RobertDyck wrote:

louis,
Are we talking about first exploration mission, with say 8 crew? Or settlement with 1,000 people or more? Big difference. I'm talking later settlement with at least one city and multiple towns.
Mars Direct includes individual cabins, with walls. Of course that was for 4 crew. Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) is a simulation with cabins for 6 crew. Basically 3 bunk beds, with each bunk sealed off into a very small cabin. MDRS has a domed roof, above the cabins there's an attic for a caretaker to sleep. Of course my criticism of MDRS is that it makes full use of both floors (decks). For a real Mars hab, lower deck would be mostly sold equipment. But the point is these walls do provide some sound insulation.
http://mdrs.marssociety.org/wp-content/ … 68x498.png
Pregnancy: exploration crew will have to be selected for individuals sufficiently professional that they won't get pregnant. Yes, I'm putting responsibility on everyone involved. But for permanent settlement, even the first one-way crew, pregnancy will be a big deal and very welcome.
Drugs an alcohol: you realize Russians somehow managed to smuggle vodka onto the Mir space station. The first American astronaut to spend 6 months on Mir, Shannon Lucid, found during the time cosmonauts were supposed to be exercising, they were drinking. Cosmonauts had to be carried out of their Soyuz capsule on return to Earth, but Shannon was able to walk off Shuttle and take an inspection walk around the Shuttle after landing. It became such an issue that Russians provided food tubes (look like toothpaste tubes) labelled vodka but actually contained borscht. I wouldn't be surprised if someone smuggled vodka onto ISS. They still get their job done.

RobertDyck · 2021-04-28 18:51:05

louis wrote:

As I suggested earlier in the thread - it would be best initially to restrict the discussion to the first 10 years. You must have missed that.
But even with a later settlement of 1000 people plus these issues will still be around. It's going to take at least a couple of decades before we can be sure how safe it is to take pregnancies to full term on Mars. But we could well have 1000 people on Mars within 10-15 years.

First point: my discussion thread Large scale colonization ship - designed to carry 1,000 settlers at a time. Or up to 1,600 if you cram them in like sardines.

Second point: Centrifuge Accommodation Module on ISS was/is supposed to test pregnancies in small mammals: laboratory mice, guinea pigs, etc. Test with them before doing it with humans. Should have been done by now, and can be done quickly. Again, LAUNCH THE DAMN THING!

louis wrote:

The most important central issue is "Under whose authority are rules being made?" If the answer is "Under the authority of the US Constitution" that gives you one set of answers (essentially - the rules that apply in the USA, also apply to the people on Mars). If the answer is "Space X make the rules" that will lead to some interesting debates. If the answer is "The rules comply with the OST and that is all that is required because the OST is the only set of rules that currently apply to Mars" then that is another ball game.

I had this discussion with Robert Zubrin in 2010. He gave a talk at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks. Local chapter invited members from Manitoba to attend. They hosted a dinner for Dr Zubrin after. I mentioned my idea of a Canadian led international mission to Mars. I was frustrated at lack of progress, time to tell the US that they had their choice. Dr Zubrin was the first to suggest using the big Russian rocket Energia, in his book "The Case for Mars". A lot of Mars Society members got excited at that idea. I could go into detail, but Dr Zubrin was afraid that would mean Canadian law and Canadian government style would be imported to Mars. He preferred the American system. A local member was with me, the discussion became a comparison of the two countries. However, I keep saying settlers would establish a new government on Mars. No Earth country would have jurisdiction.

I could give a flippant answer. Actually half serious: rule by King Me The First. CEO of the company that builds the Large Scale Colonization Ship.

kbd512 · 2021-04-28 21:17:01

Louis,

I can tell you that our courts have already decided and continuously reaffirmed that no matter where you are, you're still an American. Your rights and responsibilities to uphold the law (The Constitution) follows you, wherever you go. That's why the oaths of office and allegiance to the country and its people make so many different references to protecting and defending The Constitution (the law of the land, the principles that make us free and our actions just), bearing true faith and allegiance to the same, and obeying all lawful orders of those appointed over you. The founding principles are not bound within some particular man or woman and they are not dependent upon convenience. The entire reason American law defers to foreign law in foreign lands is to avoid needless conflicts over jurisdiction.

You can request permission to speak freely, especially to address problems, but you can't actively undermine the command structure the way politicians are so fond of doing and still expect to maintain unit cohesion and morale. Human cognition simply doesn't work that way. Questioning every last thing your commander does is not conducive to keeping everyone alive after bad things happen. Sometimes you have to pick a leader and some followers, execute an imperfect plan to the best of your ability, and then live, or not, with the results. It's tribalism with a specific purpose in mind, but no better methods have worked well enough to merit changing it.

When we did things that the commander thought were particularly contentious or dangerous, he or she would ask the crew for input, because any commander who merely expects to live through their decision making process is not so self-absorbed as to think that nobody else could possibly have useful input to make dangerous tasks somewhat less dangerous. Most commanders probably questioned themselves, along with their superiors, to the degree that everybody else questioning them was superfluous. The entire reason commanders are selected based upon aptitude (in the Navy testing never ends for anyone, ever) and experience (having been both a follower and a leader responsible for less demanding organizational tasks) is that you actually have to do a task more than once to understand how it works and what can go wrong. This doesn't mean that the correct lessons will have been learned in all cases, but this holds true often enough to be a rule of thumb.

The Captain of the first ship I was on stood up in front of the entire crew and asked them if there were things that we could do better to clean and maintain the material condition of our ship, for example. If the ideas were reasonably logical and practical to do, then they were implemented without much fuss. We managed to spend a lot less time cleaning the ship by coming up with better methods for doing it, and spent a lot more time fixing everything that was broken. If the ship ever found itself on the receiving end of enemy fire, which is admittedly unlikely, then having a ship that at least starts its mission with all of the major systems functioning properly is infinitely preferable to one that does not. To the astonishment of no one, everyone wanted their ship to function properly. There was no disagreement on that point.

People who make good commanders are constantly asking themselves the following question:

"No matter how good my plan seems to me or anyone else, what would the result be everything went horribly wrong and how can I reasonably prevent that worst from happening?"

Generally speaking, a "good solution" starts with simple plans, realistic training intended to reduce the most likely casualties or failure modes, trust amongst leaders and their subordinates that everyone knows their job and is doing it, and judicious application of "mid-course corrections" when, not if, the plan starts to fail. While nobody can account for and prepare for every possible undesirable outcome, a prudent person will identify every activity or part of "the plan" that's highly likely to get everyone killed and then start working backwards to adapt the training and responses to the expected enemy activity or operating environment. When it comes to planning, the enemy gets a vote and the environment gets a vote in the matter. Avoiding disaster is primarily about accepting that while the unexpected will inevitably happen, any failure highly likely to end the mission needs to have a contingency plan. This is exactly why so much focus is placed upon launch activities and landings. Those are quite plainly the most dangerous parts of space missions in terms of casualties produced. We've operated space stations in the LEO shooting gallery of incoming space debris and radiation for decades and never managed to remotely approach the number of crew killed during launches and landings.

As far as diversity is concerned, it's not a de-facto strength or weakness, despite all claims to the contrary. The diversity either adds something tangible to the mission goals or it doesn't. Diversity adds something to the US military because no matter where we go in the world, we have someone who looks like the people who live there and can speak their language. The same applies to having women in the military. If you care at all about keeping your people alive, that's important.

That said, putting anyone in a position who is not qualified and capable of performing their job, that your training program can reasonably produce, is a disaster waiting to happen. Anyone who is squeamish about pulling the trigger or unable to carry a heavy load has no business being in the infantry, for example. If that prevents certain people from having that job, then so be it. You did them and everyone relying on them a favor by not pushing them beyond their mental and physical limits. Even people who start out being capable of the job may not be by the time their service ends, hence the never-ending testing. In short, knowing who's capable and who's not is very difficult to properly evaluate. Combat is definitely not an appropriate Petri dish for social experiments, nor is a mission tens of millions of miles from Earth in some of the most hostile environments where humans with cutting edge technology might feasibly be able to live.

Hiring people on the basis of superficial physical characteristics in order to score brownie points with people who don't have to live with the results, is bad policy, plain and simple. The only type of affirmative action I support is that we affirm that our hiring practices will be based upon aptitude, interest, and effort. You need to be good at your job (physically and psychologically capable of doing it), devoted to doing it well (not prone to giving up or pitching fits when things don't go your way), and you need to be willing to put in the elbow grease to get the job done (dogged determination to get it done right).

The reason there are more men than women in STEM is that more women are interested in PEOPLE than THINGS, and vice versa for men. There are more women who are teachers for that same reason. Despite having a STEM education, my own wife decides who to work for based upon whether or not she likes socializing with the people she works with. Contrary to claims from engineers and mechanics, you can't have much of a relationship with a machine, so for people looking for relationships with other people, inanimate objects don't do much for them. The reason there are more men than women in prison is called testosterone- that biologically-generated chemical that creates large muscles and aggressive behavior. No matter who you inject with that chemical, man or woman, it has the same effect, as if basic biology doesn't care about beliefs related to sex / gender at all. Some of this stuff is so painfully obvious that any attempt at denial is facially absurd, not that that stops people who sort for differences from trying. It doesn't mean men are inherently smarter and more violent than women, nor that women are inherently better teachers or care givers. There's an endless number of completely individualistic variables that determine stuff like that. There's scant evidence of "this type of person is better at X", at a species-level scale. It does mean that at the extreme ends of the scale, you're never going to have the world's strongest woman who is stronger than the world's strongest man. You're never going to have more women who are violent criminals than men- something that all of humanity should be thankful for. You're going to have vanishingly few women who find fulfillment being stuck in a server closet pouring over data, even though they clearly exist.

Valuation is always highly contentious and subjective, but objectively men don't survive without women and women don't survive without men and children don't do well at all without both. No amount of mental gymnastics aimed at finding an exception will change that fact. In very harsh environments, we work with each other (as humans, not men vs women, black vs white, gay vs hetero vs identifies as a toaster, Christian vs Jew vs Islam vs atheist, nor any other superficial individual differences. Instead of worrying about nonsense like that, we must play to our strengths and rely on others to mitigate our weaknesses. That typically means you need a good mix or cross-section of society to accomplish that, so some kind of diversity is required, or the mission fails. The fact that we are all so very different, while simultaneously indistinguishably similar in many other ways, is not an actual problem. We didn't make it as far as we have without a lot of cooperation and dealing with failure in constructive ways.

tahanson43206 · 2021-04-28 22:14:15

For kbd512 re #12

Your essay here deserves to be remembered, and found again.

This post is here if I ever come up with a tag that fits.

A number of the points you made have appeared in your earlier work. It is possible you are getting better with practice.

It is also possible Louis once again inspired you to do your best work.

(th)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-04-28 22:15:58

I'm gonna give this post from kbd512 only 2 thumbs up because I don't have more hands. It's really well written and has insight into many of the issues a Mars Mission #1 will undoubtedly face.

RobertDyck · 2021-04-28 22:52:03

A couple problems with the post by kbd512.

No, American law does not apply in other countries. We of other countries have encountered a lot of incredibly arrogant condescending Americans visiting our country. Here in Winnipeg I once went to a party by a dating club. We were all single. One woman was an American, not Canadian. She said she had served in Saudi Arabia, and had casual sex often. The law in Saudi Arabia prohibits sex outside marriage. The penalty is severe: a judge could sentence you to death. Yup, engaging in consensual sex between two single adults can result in the death penalty. Bizarre laws are a reason I would never accept a job there. But this woman claimed that since she was American, she could do whatever she wanted.

Secondly, we're talking about settlement. This is not the military. Military rules and military law will not apply. Exploration expeditions will follow space agency discipline, which is basically military disciple. But once permanent settlement starts, then no. My home is mine, and my property is mine. No commander with some artistic brass broach stuck to his clothing is going to tell me what to do in my home.

kbd512 · 2021-04-29 01:54:04

Robert,

Quoting yourself is kinda strange, but...

The entire reason American law defers to foreign law in foreign lands is to avoid needless conflicts over jurisdiction.

The implication in that statement is that American law does not apply in foreign lands and our courts and legislature avoided any attempt to apply our laws because we wanted to avoid conflicts over jurisdiction.

If you're a civilian, then unless martial law is declared, you need not worry about a military commander telling you what to do in your home.

Not to put too fine a point on the matter of law, but all of those terrorists locked up in Guantanamo Bay probably understand by now that military law absolutely does apply to them after they engage US military personnel in war zones without wearing uniforms.

RobertDyck · 2021-04-29 05:28:39

The purpose of Guantanamo Bay is to violate every known law. When you invade a country, citizens of that country are obligated to defend their country from you. Absolutely every citizen who engages in combat of any sort to defend their country from you is patriot. The Geneva Convention is the law that governs war. Every citizen of that country you capture is a prisoner of war. Once cessation of hostilities is declared, you are required to release all prisoners of war. Furthermore, you are not allowed to torture prisoners. Water boarding is torture. Guantanamo Bay is about: to hell with law, we're the big bully and we'll do whatever we want.

When Barack Obama was first elected in 2008, one election promise was to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. I call on Joe Biden to fulfill that promise. He likes invoke President Obama so much. Republicans got in President Obama's way in 2008. One simple method that any President can do: close the entire military base, return the land back to Cuba. Then no one can oppose closing the prison. Under US law, closing a base is entirely the authority of a President. And now that President Obama has established normal relations with Cuba, the country of Cuba has issued an official statement through their ambassador asking for that land back.

Let's not duplicate the mistakes of history. Saint John's Newfoundland was established by fishermen in 1496/'97 and the years shortly after. It wasn't any government. The rule they set is the captain of the fishing ship that arrived at Saint John's first each fishing season was declared Fishing Admiral for that season. Effectively governor. There were fishermen there from England, France, Spain, Portugal, Normandy (part of France but culturally separate), and Basque (part of Spain, but also culturally separate). There were Dutch traders as well, but I'm not sure of the dates. In 1583 British Admiral Humphrey Gilbert arrived with 3 navy ships. One of the frigates had engaged in an act of piracy against one of the Portuguese fishing ships, so fishermen tried to blockade the harbour. The standoff lasted 3 days, but they got through. With marines, they demanded tax at the point of a gun. The Admiral sailed the caravel across the North Atlantic to England. It disappeared during that journey. For decades no one dared try to collect tax from Saint John's again. Over the centuries there were many wars over Saint John's. At one point businessmen of Saint John's hired mercenaries to kick out all armies of all European nations. It was war. Don't repeat mistakes of the past, don't start an interplanetary war.

louis · 2021-04-29 09:57:47

I don't have any major disagreements with what you write, except you seem to assume context, but I do have some comments:

1. The US now allows dual nationality so I think it is an entirely open question whether a person who is both an American citizen and a citizen of the People's Republic of China owes loyalty primarily to one or the other. Both countries require that you travel the globe with your loyalty to their constitution with you at all times. The US is unusual in often extending its laws e.g. commercial laws to other countries' territories.

2. The OST explicitly excludes signatories (including the USA) making any claim to the territory. It could be said that saying your constututional writ runs on Mars is making a claim to the territory. It wouldn't be very logical for the US to say "we make no claim to Mars but we expect every American to adhere to all our laws while on Mars including in relation to taxation, commerce, property ownership and so on". What would be the status of non-Americans at a Space X base? Would they have the same obligations as American citizens?

3. You seem to assume there will be a rigid command structure. Space X have never stated there will be. Command structures more often than not go with voluminous military or similar regulations which ultimately are backed up by statues approved by the state.

4. Having regard to 1 and 2 above, I think the issue of what status rules on Mars have remains problematic. It probably won't be an issue for Mission One and the early missions when teams are small. But by the time you've got say 100 people on Mars - some Space X employees, some American nationals, some non-American nationals, some employees of Universities , other space agencies or large companies (Earth-based) and some individual paying "guests", then you have no easily defined command structure and it is not clear whose rules apply. This is one of the reasons I would like to see a clear route map to a single sovereign democratic self-governing state for the Planet Mars. This would be a staged process. You could start with a governor, and then have a governor with an appointed advisory council, before you introduce some elections for advisory council members, and gradually democratise the whole process as the population of Mars grows. We have examples from history where colonial companies like the East India Company and Hudson Bay Company would appoint governors.

5. Regarding diversity, there are a number of issues:

(a) In a very small team you can probably have a lot of diversity without any risk to standards of output. The larger the workforce, the greater the risk unless all the skill areas you are interested in (engineering, farming, rocket experts) are already fully diverse (which I think we can assume is not the case). I don't think you should value diversity over work quality standards but you can see there is pressure in that direction.

(b) For Mission One, I think there will be a big focus on the people going to Mars, and I think there will be a lot of pressure to create a diverse team. That's not particularly my wish, just a statement of reality and I was giving an indication of what I think would be considered an "ideal" team in the current era.

(c) How do you define diversity? If you value it, are you trying to replicate on Mars (in a proportionate way), American diversity (which still is a majoritarian European origin country I believe) or world diversity (where Europeans are quite a small minority)? Is it not about proportions and percentages - is it enough to simply to have all the races and nationalities across the world represented? Or are you trying for a different diversity on Mars? Are you looked to create more a mixed race community where there are no sharp racial differences in appearance, more a blended continuum...more Brazil than USA.

(d) Your views on women and their interests, however objectively true, could get you fired from a lot of places now. This is the problem with letting PC ideology run rampant - it stifles free debate, just as much as in the days when patriarchy ruled unchallenged.

(e) Religious diversity could be even trickier. Are we looking to reflect religious belief on Earth with strict proportions of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Daoists and so on ? Or are should we actually be looking to recruit people who don't practise a religious faith in any overt fashion. You will be saving yourself a helluvalot of bother if you go for the latter.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
I can tell you that our courts have already decided and continuously reaffirmed that no matter where you are, you're still an American. Your rights and responsibilities to uphold the law (The Constitution) follows you, wherever you go. That's why the oaths of office and allegiance to the country and its people make so many different references to protecting and defending The Constitution (the law of the land, the principles that make us free and our actions just), bearing true faith and allegiance to the same, and obeying all lawful orders of those appointed over you. The founding principles are not bound within some particular man or woman and they are not dependent upon convenience. The entire reason American law defers to foreign law in foreign lands is to avoid needless conflicts over jurisdiction.
You can request permission to speak freely, especially to address problems, but you can't actively undermine the command structure the way politicians are so fond of doing and still expect to maintain unit cohesion and morale. Human cognition simply doesn't work that way. Questioning every last thing your commander does is not conducive to keeping everyone alive after bad things happen. Sometimes you have to pick a leader and some followers, execute an imperfect plan to the best of your ability, and then live, or not, with the results. It's tribalism with a specific purpose in mind, but no better methods have worked well enough to merit changing it.
When we did things that the commander thought were particularly contentious or dangerous, he or she would ask the crew for input, because any commander who merely expects to live through their decision making process is not so self-absorbed as to think that nobody else could possibly have useful input to make dangerous tasks somewhat less dangerous. Most commanders probably questioned themselves, along with their superiors, to the degree that everybody else questioning them was superfluous. The entire reason commanders are selected based upon aptitude (in the Navy testing never ends for anyone, ever) and experience (having been both a follower and a leader responsible for less demanding organizational tasks) is that you actually have to do a task more than once to understand how it works and what can go wrong. This doesn't mean that the correct lessons will have been learned in all cases, but this holds true often enough to be a rule of thumb.
The Captain of the first ship I was on stood up in front of the entire crew and asked them if there were things that we could do better to clean and maintain the material condition of our ship, for example. If the ideas were reasonably logical and practical to do, then they were implemented without much fuss. We managed to spend a lot less time cleaning the ship by coming up with better methods for doing it, and spent a lot more time fixing everything that was broken. If the ship ever found itself on the receiving end of enemy fire, which is admittedly unlikely, then having a ship that at least starts its mission with all of the major systems functioning properly is infinitely preferable to one that does not. To the astonishment of no one, everyone wanted their ship to function properly. There was no disagreement on that point.
People who make good commanders are constantly asking themselves the following question:
"No matter how good my plan seems to me or anyone else, what would the result be everything went horribly wrong and how can I reasonably prevent that worst from happening?"
Generally speaking, a "good solution" starts with simple plans, realistic training intended to reduce the most likely casualties or failure modes, trust amongst leaders and their subordinates that everyone knows their job and is doing it, and judicious application of "mid-course corrections" when, not if, the plan starts to fail. While nobody can account for and prepare for every possible undesirable outcome, a prudent person will identify every activity or part of "the plan" that's highly likely to get everyone killed and then start working backwards to adapt the training and responses to the expected enemy activity or operating environment. When it comes to planning, the enemy gets a vote and the environment gets a vote in the matter. Avoiding disaster is primarily about accepting that while the unexpected will inevitably happen, any failure highly likely to end the mission needs to have a contingency plan. This is exactly why so much focus is placed upon launch activities and landings. Those are quite plainly the most dangerous parts of space missions in terms of casualties produced. We've operated space stations in the LEO shooting gallery of incoming space debris and radiation for decades and never managed to remotely approach the number of crew killed during launches and landings.
As far as diversity is concerned, it's not a de-facto strength or weakness, despite all claims to the contrary. The diversity either adds something tangible to the mission goals or it doesn't. Diversity adds something to the US military because no matter where we go in the world, we have someone who looks like the people who live there and can speak their language. The same applies to having women in the military. If you care at all about keeping your people alive, that's important.
That said, putting anyone in a position who is not qualified and capable of performing their job, that your training program can reasonably produce, is a disaster waiting to happen. Anyone who is squeamish about pulling the trigger or unable to carry a heavy load has no business being in the infantry, for example. If that prevents certain people from having that job, then so be it. You did them and everyone relying on them a favor by not pushing them beyond their mental and physical limits. Even people who start out being capable of the job may not be by the time their service ends, hence the never-ending testing. In short, knowing who's capable and who's not is very difficult to properly evaluate. Combat is definitely not an appropriate Petri dish for social experiments, nor is a mission tens of millions of miles from Earth in some of the most hostile environments where humans with cutting edge technology might feasibly be able to live.
Hiring people on the basis of superficial physical characteristics in order to score brownie points with people who don't have to live with the results, is bad policy, plain and simple. The only type of affirmative action I support is that we affirm that our hiring practices will be based upon aptitude, interest, and effort. You need to be good at your job (physically and psychologically capable of doing it), devoted to doing it well (not prone to giving up or pitching fits when things don't go your way), and you need to be willing to put in the elbow grease to get the job done (dogged determination to get it done right).
The reason there are more men than women in STEM is that more women are interested in PEOPLE than THINGS, and vice versa for men. There are more women who are teachers for that same reason. Despite having a STEM education, my own wife decides who to work for based upon whether or not she likes socializing with the people she works with. Contrary to claims from engineers and mechanics, you can't have much of a relationship with a machine, so for people looking for relationships with other people, inanimate objects don't do much for them. The reason there are more men than women in prison is called testosterone- that biologically-generated chemical that creates large muscles and aggressive behavior. No matter who you inject with that chemical, man or woman, it has the same effect, as if basic biology doesn't care about beliefs related to sex / gender at all. Some of this stuff is so painfully obvious that any attempt at denial is facially absurd, not that that stops people who sort for differences from trying. It doesn't mean men are inherently smarter and more violent than women, nor that women are inherently better teachers or care givers. There's an endless number of completely individualistic variables that determine stuff like that. There's scant evidence of "this type of person is better at X", at a species-level scale. It does mean that at the extreme ends of the scale, you're never going to have the world's strongest woman who is stronger than the world's strongest man. You're never going to have more women who are violent criminals than men- something that all of humanity should be thankful for. You're going to have vanishingly few women who find fulfillment being stuck in a server closet pouring over data, even though they clearly exist.
Valuation is always highly contentious and subjective, but objectively men don't survive without women and women don't survive without men and children don't do well at all without both. No amount of mental gymnastics aimed at finding an exception will change that fact. In very harsh environments, we work with each other (as humans, not men vs women, black vs white, gay vs hetero vs identifies as a toaster, Christian vs Jew vs Islam vs atheist, nor any other superficial individual differences. Instead of worrying about nonsense like that, we must play to our strengths and rely on others to mitigate our weaknesses. That typically means you need a good mix or cross-section of society to accomplish that, so some kind of diversity is required, or the mission fails. The fact that we are all so very different, while simultaneously indistinguishably similar in many other ways, is not an actual problem. We didn't make it as far as we have without a lot of cooperation and dealing with failure in constructive ways.

louis · 2021-04-29 10:00:51

Most of the people fighting Americans in Afghanistan after 9-11 weren't Afghans so your rather facile argument about patriotism doesn't apply!

Normal relations with Cuba? Is that the same Cuba that uses ultrasound weapons on American diplomats?

RobertDyck wrote:

The purpose of Guantanamo Bay is to violate every known law. When you invade a country, citizens of that country are obligated to defend their country from you. Absolutely every citizen who engages in combat of any sort to defend their country from you is patriot. The Geneva Convention is the law that governs war. Every citizen of that country you capture is a prisoner of war. Once cessation of hostilities is declared, you are required to release all prisoners of war. Furthermore, you are not allowed to torture prisoners. Water boarding is torture. Guantanamo Bay is about: to hell with law, we're the big bully and we'll do whatever we want.
When Barack Obama was first elected in 2008, one election promise was to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. I call on Joe Biden to fulfill that promise. He likes invoke President Obama so much. Republicans got in President Obama's way in 2008. One simple method that any President can do: close the entire military base, return the land back to Cuba. Then no one can oppose closing the prison. Under US law, closing a base is entirely the authority of a President. And now that President Obama has established normal relations with Cuba, the country of Cuba has issued an official statement through their ambassador asking for that land back.
Let's not duplicate the mistakes of history. Saint John's Newfoundland was established by fishermen in 1496/'97 and the years shortly after. It wasn't any government. The rule they set is the captain of the fishing ship that arrived at Saint John's first each fishing season was declared Fishing Admiral for that season. Effectively governor. There were fishermen there from England, France, Spain, Portugal, Normandy (part of France but culturally separate), and Basque (part of Spain, but also culturally separate). There were Dutch traders as well, but I'm not sure of the dates. In 1583 British Admiral Humphrey Gilbert arrived with 3 navy ships. One of the frigates had engaged in an act of piracy against one of the Portuguese fishing ships, so fishermen tried to blockade the harbour. The standoff lasted 3 days, but they got through. With marines, they demanded tax at the point of a gun. The Admiral sailed the caravel across the North Atlantic to England. It disappeared during that journey. For decades no one dared try to collect tax from Saint John's again. Over the centuries there were many wars over Saint John's. At one point businessmen of Saint John's hired mercenaries to kick out all armies of all European nations. It was war. Don't repeat mistakes of the past, don't start an interplanetary war.

RobertDyck · 2021-04-29 10:46:58

louis wrote:

Most of the people fighting Americans in Afghanistan after 9-11 weren't Afghans so your rather facile argument about patriotism doesn't apply!

You realize they *WERE* Afghans. Taliban were/are Afghans.

Do we have to go over the entire Afghan war again? George W. Bush made a lot of serious mistakes. The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan before the war. George W. demanded they hand over Osama bin Laden. The Taliban government agreed, but conditional on seeing evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. That's a reasonable request, any western country would demand the same if the US demanded extradition of someone in their country for a capital offence. George W. refused to provide said evidence. Instead he invaded their country. Taliban were not involved in any way with 9/11. They weren't nice guys, but weren't involved in 9/11.

louis wrote:

Normal relations with Cuba? Is that the same Cuba that uses ultrasound weapons on American diplomats?

So you still want to hold a grudge. At least there are American diplomats in Cuba. I'm not going to take the bait. Bottom line: the government of Cuba has told the US to get off their island.

RobertDyck · 2021-04-29 11:11:53

This discussion thread is titled "The Difficult Ones". Ok, we're getting into difficulties.

louis responded to kbd512:

louis wrote:

1. The US now allows dual nationality... The US is unusual in often extending its laws e.g. commercial laws to other countries' territories.
2. The OST explicitly excludes signatories (including the USA) making any claim to the territory. ... It wouldn't be very logical for the US to say "we make no claim to Mars but we expect every American to adhere to all our laws while on Mars including in relation to taxation, commerce, property ownership and so on".

Settlement may require immigrants to Mars to surrender their Earth citizenship. Specifically Americans. Because of these issues.

louis wrote:

What would be the status of non-Americans at a Space X base? Would they have the same obligations as American citizens?

I applied for work with SpaceX in 2016. I was told they cannot hire a non-American due to ITAR regulations. The HR person was polite, said that if I become a US resident then I could re-apply. ITAR does not require American citizenship, but does require residency. How many SpaceX employees are not citizens, merely landed immigrants? If someone lived in the US for years with a greencard and went to Mars, would the US still try to collect tax, etc?

Under the OST, no country may claim territory on any celestial body. Land on Mars is treated as "international waters". A ship at sea is registered with a country; when in international waters it's considered territory of that country. That means a facility built on Mars will be considered territory of the country that built it. Or if built by a corporation, territory of the country in which the company is incorporated. But only the facility, not any ore deposit, mine, or other land.

This means in order for Mars to be independent, the corporation that establishes Mars may have to be incorporated with a country that is not a signatory to the OST.

kbd512 · 2021-04-29 12:02:09

Robert,

The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists who wear civilian clothes to disguise themselves for the purpose of mass murdering other civilians. Uniformed members of other armed services from other countries are not treated the same way that terrorists are treated. If al-Qaeda and the Taliban started wearing uniforms identifying them as members of a military organization, with a formalized command structure, then they will be treated differently.

We invaded Afghanistan because the government there harbored a terrorist group that sent multiple groups of armed men to America / UK / numerous other countries, all disguised as civilians, for the express purpose of mass murdering civilians. That government refused to turn over those terrorists for arrest and prosecution, and also refused to arrest and prosecute those terrorists themselves. Using the government of another country as a shield against arrest and prosecution does not confer immunity for crimes committed in foreign countries, as 9/11 demonstrated. There's nothing patriotic about their actions, either.

On a more personal note, nobody I know demonstrates their love for country by flying airliners into skyscrapers, killing both their fellow countrymen and people they profess to hate. It's a criminal act, plain and simple, and carries legal consequences with it. The al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership was given the option of surrendering so that they could be taken prisoner and tried before a court of law in Afghanistan, which may have been sympathetic to their cause, or maybe not. We'll never know now, because they refused and took up arms, so they were killed. That's how the law works in both America, Afghanistan, and Canada. You can choose to be taken prisoner and given a trial or be shot on the spot for resisting arrest. If you think it works some other way, then observe what happens when criminals take up arms against the RCMP.

This childish "you're not the boss of me" nonsense only works the way you want it to when you're not actively trying to mass murder your fellow civilians.

RobertDyck · 2021-04-29 12:40:32

kbd512 wrote:

The al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership was given the option of surrendering so that they could be taken prisoner and tried before a court of law in Afghanistan

Taliban *WERE* the government of Afghanistan. The government to which you refer was put in place by the US.

kbd512 wrote:

This childish "you're not the boss of me" nonsense only works the way you want it to when you're not actively trying to mass murder your fellow civilians.

First, the Taliban were the government. So any argument of taking up arms against the government is moot.
Second, the Taliban were not involved in al-Qaeda attacks on the US. Taliban used them as mercenaries to support their power within Afghanistan. Taliban had no interest outside their borders.
You have fallen for propaganda from George W. Bush administration, lumping Taliban with al-Qaeda. Again, they're not nice guys, but were not in anyway involved in attacks on the US.

And the George W. Bush administration refused to acknowledge asymmetrical warfare. You realize attacks on US embassies and the USS Cole are considered asymmetrical warfare, not terrorism. As for the attack on the World Trade Center, that's a major source of funding to finance the US military so al-Qaeda considered it a legitimate target. During World War 2 the US bombed factories, oil refineries and rail lines. They were considered legitimate targets.

I don't want to defend them, but US response was inappropriate. Al-Qaeda was not a national government, so the correct response was to coordinate with the government of that country, send in police to arrest them. Dropping bombs and cruise missiles on territory of another country is an act of war. And yes, the US did that years before 9/11. That only resulted in escalation.

Can we drop it now? Yes, this is a thread about "Difficult Ones". The conclusion is any Americans must surrender their US citizenship when moving to Mars.

tahanson43206 · 2021-04-29 14:16:55

For RobertDyck and kbd512 ...

Thanks for contributing some thought provoking points of view to Louis' topic here ...

For RobertDyck ... your conclusion in post #23 is inspired ... The only Americans who (I am under the impression) willingly give up their citizenship have stashed ill gotten gains in foreign countries.

The idea of an honest American giving up citizenship for an adventure in a place away from US jurisdiction seems quite surprising (to me at least).

I'd much rather see other citizens of ** other ** Nations give up their citizenship.

I can just imagine how your idea would resonate in China, to pick just one prominent example.

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-04-29 14:28:00

Louis,

louis wrote:

I don't have any major disagreements with what you write, except you seem to assume context, but I do have some comments:
1. The US now allows dual nationality so I think it is an entirely open question whether a person who is both an American citizen and a citizen of the People's Republic of China owes loyalty primarily to one or the other. Both countries require that you travel the globe with your loyalty to their constitution with you at all times. The US is unusual in often extending its laws e.g. commercial laws to other countries' territories.

The US allows dual citizenship, but you swear an oath of allegiance to the United States of America and renounce any oaths taken to any foreign country. If you refuse to take the oath, then you're not an American.

louis wrote:

2. The OST explicitly excludes signatories (including the USA) making any claim to the territory. It could be said that saying your constututional writ runs on Mars is making a claim to the territory. It wouldn't be very logical for the US to say "we make no claim to Mars but we expect every American to adhere to all our laws while on Mars including in relation to taxation, commerce, property ownership and so on". What would be the status of non-Americans at a Space X base? Would they have the same obligations as American citizens?

I can tell you that if you're on an American-flagged ship or base, which would include any mission that launches from American soil or uses American space technology (rockets, life support, space suits, etc), then American laws apply. There's no such thing as a "SpaceX base", apart from the legal entity that owns the property. SpaceX is an American corporation subject to American laws, plain and simple. All legal arguments to the contrary have been repeatedly struck down by the courts. If you operate a corporation from American soil, then you're subject to American laws, no matter where else you operate. An American company accused of stealing IP from a Chinese corporation would be prosecuted in an American court for doing so. Pirates have tried to make the claim that American laws don't apply to them when they attack American ships. The American Navy thinks otherwise and will execute them on the spot if they refuse to be taken prisoner.

If the UK creates their own space rockets launched from UK soil, then UK laws apply.

If the Canadians create their own space rockets launched from Canadian soil, then Canadian laws apply.

The laws related to citizenship and incorporation don't cease to apply because you operate somewhere else. That's why Tesla factories operated in China are operated under a separate legal entity that's subject to Chinese laws. Other corporations establish legal entities in other countries for the same reason. Long story short, laws apply, no matter where you are.

louis wrote:

3. You seem to assume there will be a rigid command structure. Space X have never stated there will be. Command structures more often than not go with voluminous military or similar regulations which ultimately are backed up by statues approved by the state.

No, I don't, but any mission involving astronauts will have a clearly defined command structure. I get the impression that people who have never been in the military think you have people going around screaming, "I order you to do this! I order you to do that!", but it simply doesn't work that way in real life. It's more like, you walk into the ready room and say, "Good morning, Skipper, what are we doing today?", to which he or she responds, "Well, we've been tasked by headquarters to do X today, so what assets do we have available for that mission?"

You do have to address officers as "sir" or "ma'am" or by their proper rank and officers do have to address the enlisted by their proper rate. There are also informal or hurried conversations where we dispense with ranks and rates to get a job done faster, and will simply address someone by their last name or callsign so everyone else knows who we're talking to. Nobody salutes anyone on a battlefield or comes to attention, and both officers and enlisted around you will become more than a little irritated with you if you insist on doing that, mostly because the enemy may not be able to tell who's who when they start shooting.

Believe it or not, there is mutual respect amongst members of the military for both the offices and jobs that we do, which is ultimately a sign of respect to the people and to the country for which they stand. I always find civilian responses to love and respect for your fellow countrymen a bit mystifying. I don't see how you can have much mutual cooperation without love and respect for each other.

louis wrote:

4. Having regard to 1 and 2 above, I think the issue of what status rules on Mars have remains problematic. It probably won't be an issue for Mission One and the early missions when teams are small. But by the time you've got say 100 people on Mars - some Space X employees, some American nationals, some non-American nationals, some employees of Universities , other space agencies or large companies (Earth-based) and some individual paying "guests", then you have no easily defined command structure and it is not clear whose rules apply. This is one of the reasons I would like to see a clear route map to a single sovereign democratic self-governing state for the Planet Mars. This would be a staged process. You could start with a governor, and then have a governor with an appointed advisory council, before you introduce some elections for advisory council members, and gradually democratise the whole process as the population of Mars grows. We have examples from history where colonial companies like the East India Company and Hudson Bay Company would appoint governors.

Again, you have to cooperate with each other and have minimum standards for behavior towards each other. If you want to take a vote on who's in charge, that's fine, but then you have to carry out the orders of those appointed over you. Civilian authority doesn't change the fact that the ship or base has to be cleaned / repaired / inspected / etc if you want to live.

The military clearly defines lawful orders and your duty to refuse unlawful orders and to arrest anyone who gives an unlawful order. Even COs are subject to the law. If they issue an unlawful order, the Master-At-Arms will confine the CO to quarters and the XO will take over pending the outcome of a court martial. This has happened before aboard warships of every nation, and while it's obviously very serious, there are also legal remedies for dealing with unlawful orders.

The CO tasking you with performing a particularly dangerous repair assignment is lawful, even if you or someone else thinks the necessity of carrying out the repair is questionable. You can ask the CO if he or she will reconsider or provide details about why you think the repair is unnecessary, but since ultimate responsibility rests with the CO, being ordered to repair the ship or base is at the CO's discretion. If the CO orders you to kill someone on the spot who does not clearly present a danger to anyone else, that would clearly be unlawful and cause for the CO's immediate arrest.

louis wrote:

5. Regarding diversity, there are a number of issues:
(a) In a very small team you can probably have a lot of diversity without any risk to standards of output. The larger the workforce, the greater the risk unless all the skill areas you are interested in (engineering, farming, rocket experts) are already fully diverse (which I think we can assume is not the case). I don't think you should value diversity over work quality standards but you can see there is pressure in that direction.
(b) For Mission One, I think there will be a big focus on the people going to Mars, and I think there will be a lot of pressure to create a diverse team. That's not particularly my wish, just a statement of reality and I was giving an indication of what I think would be considered an "ideal" team in the current era.
(c) How do you define diversity? If you value it, are you trying to replicate on Mars (in a proportionate way), American diversity (which still is a majoritarian European origin country I believe) or world diversity (where Europeans are quite a small minority)? Is it not about proportions and percentages - is it enough to simply to have all the races and nationalities across the world represented? Or are you trying for a different diversity on Mars? Are you looked to create more a mixed race community where there are no sharp racial differences in appearance, more a blended continuum...more Brazil than USA.
(d) Your views on women and their interests, however objectively true, could get you fired from a lot of places now. This is the problem with letting PC ideology run rampant - it stifles free debate, just as much as in the days when patriarchy ruled unchallenged.
(e) Religious diversity could be even trickier. Are we looking to reflect religious belief on Earth with strict proportions of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Daoists and so on ? Or are should we actually be looking to recruit people who don't practise a religious faith in any overt fashion. You will be saving yourself a helluvalot of bother if you go for the latter.

I don't have a dictionary definition for diversity because it's subjective. I can tell you that innate physical characteristics are not a mark of useful diversity. I do value diversity of thought, skill, education, and character. Having a mission with one American, one Russian, one German, one Canadian, one Japanese astronaut / cosmonaut or what have you, is not inherently useful. A mechanic is useful if the problem is a broken engine. A mechanic is not useful if the problem is a broken leg. If each of those people bring unique and useful skills to the mission and they're the best at what they do, then that's useful diversity. What they look like and where they're from is superfluous. They either work well with each other and have the required skill set for the mission or they don't.

My bunk mate in boot camp was from Nigeria. He wasn't useful to the US Navy because he was from Nigeria. He was useful because he was highly intelligent (at least according to military testing, although I'm sure a few civilians will think otherwise because he joined the military), followed orders, and was good at what the Navy wanted him to do. I also had a friend from New York on my first ship. He wasn't "usefully diverse" because he was from New York vs Nigeria vs somewhere else. Once again, he was intelligent and required very little guidance on orders because he was good at his job. The Chief or Division Officer really likes being able to simply tell the sailors, "We need to do X today", then walk away, and come back later after "X" has been done. They really don't have any interest at all in telling you how to do your job. They want you to already know that and to inform them of any problems with whatever you've been ordered to do, so they can inform their superiors or otherwise facilitate a solution.

My views on differences between men and women is merely admitting to the simple fact that we are different in meaningful ways. It's not a criticism. This was in response to all-men or all-women missions. If the people on the mission don't represent human society, then you don't have a human society on Mars. Having both men and women present is a pretty fundamental aspect of human society. Any society that survives beyond a single generation will also have children present. As I stated before, the fact that we're different is NOT an actual problem. Natural selection already dictated to us that we complement each other. The overriding theme behind my commentary is that you absolutely need BOTH, or you don't have a well-functioning society. One is not better than the other. I've seen and read enough "battle of the sexes" nonsense in media lately to know that it's pure idiocy. Men are not better than women and women are not better than men.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2021-04-27 19:10:58

The Difficult Ones

#2 2021-04-27 20:42:21

Re: The Difficult Ones

#3 2021-04-27 22:12:17

Re: The Difficult Ones

#4 2021-04-28 16:46:05

Re: The Difficult Ones

#5 2021-04-28 17:17:08

Re: The Difficult Ones

#6 2021-04-28 17:41:36

Re: The Difficult Ones

#7 2021-04-28 18:01:31

Re: The Difficult Ones

#8 2021-04-28 18:12:10

Re: The Difficult Ones

#9 2021-04-28 18:24:55

Re: The Difficult Ones

#10 2021-04-28 18:34:49

Re: The Difficult Ones

#11 2021-04-28 18:51:05

Re: The Difficult Ones

#12 2021-04-28 21:17:01

Re: The Difficult Ones

#13 2021-04-28 22:14:15

Re: The Difficult Ones

#14 2021-04-28 22:15:58

Re: The Difficult Ones

#15 2021-04-28 22:52:03

Re: The Difficult Ones

#16 2021-04-29 01:54:04

Re: The Difficult Ones

#17 2021-04-29 05:28:39

Re: The Difficult Ones

#18 2021-04-29 09:57:47

Re: The Difficult Ones

#19 2021-04-29 10:00:51

Re: The Difficult Ones

#20 2021-04-29 10:46:58

Re: The Difficult Ones

#21 2021-04-29 11:11:53

Re: The Difficult Ones

#22 2021-04-29 12:02:09

Re: The Difficult Ones

#23 2021-04-29 12:40:32

Re: The Difficult Ones

#24 2021-04-29 14:16:55

Re: The Difficult Ones

#25 2021-04-29 14:28:00

Re: The Difficult Ones

Board footer