Money - on mars

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-17 21:27:59

Josh, I proved the debit vs. credit card issue to a T.

Nah, and if you insist on keeping the argument alive, I can quite easily go back and quote your absurdities. This is, after all, the same person who thinks that ?spend[ing] what you put onto [a debit card]? isn't prepayment.

Your posts increasingly show that you can't bear being wrong on anything dealing with economics.

Where was I wrong? Restate the argument or something, because I'm throughly confused as to why we're continuing to argue about something I made perfectly clear. The argument was concluded several posts up.

Your obsession with communism/socialism/anarchy is getting funnier by the post.

I see no connection between my comments about credit cards and socialism/anarchy, but if you'd like to make the connection, please feel free.

But if you were speaking generally, I can't help but to apply anarchy to a space faring society. It's the only rational system, and I've proven it time and time again on these boards. I need to write a FAQ and just put it in my sig that way people can email me with their disputes or something.

You mean I have no right to own anything?

We have been over this over and over. Read the Calling All Anarchists thread, read the Averting Global Catrosphe thread. You know damn well I'm not talking getting rid of possessions. You're just trolling.

You are going to tell me, in all seriousness, that a larger population is easier to manage than a small one?

If it's sufficiently decentralized it should be the same, not harder. If you have a self sufficient town, how does that town effect the towns outside of it? Do the matters of self sufficient town A affect the matters of self sufficient town B? No, management would be highly dilluted between colonies and towns, and maybe even habs. Resource-wise, they wouldn't affect one another.

It's not like I have any desire for inefficiency, the fact is, that it will exist as the system gets larger.

And yet, you've failed to show how! In basic soph fasion, you simply make a obviously wrong statement and hope that it goes unchallenged!

Once resources are sufficiently distributed there is no real argument about inefficiency in a large decentralized population. Each town or node of that population can exist independently and any unforeseen inefficency (like production dropping temporarily) is localized and doesn't affect the overall system.

Well, since I don't see any big centralization hurting Earth, I actually see globalization helping Earth greatly[.]

Oh, well, go back and refute the argument I was making in the Avertng Global Catrosphe thread, then. Globalization is certainly helping the first and second world nations, and though it's harming third world nations it promises to fix them (I personally doubt globalization will do it directly- it'll be something steming from globalization). This may be a case where the ends justify the means, but we have to be honest with ourselves here. The means aren't pretty.

No, you need multiple distribution centers to ensure that everybody gets their rations, and so on.

Hah, you mean, you have to have multiple gardens, one in each 100 person hab, for example. These gardens should be relatively easy to maintain, so easy, in fact, you couldn't really call it work. And it doesn't ?cost? much to have a greenhouse, in fact, you could ?grow? greenhouses using biomass derivatives.

If you have one massive greenhouse and a hundred distribution centers, then, yes, obviously it would be harder to manage as the population gets bigger, but this isn't decentralization! That's what you were getting at earlier, though.

Bread lines, so to speak.

Sure.

Or soy lines or whatever. :;):

Very little to no loss? Come on, Josh, there is nothing besides your fantasies and Proudhon to back this up.

Let's see.

The Laws of Thermodynamics
The Conservation of Mass

See my sig.

Calling fact ?fantasy? just proves your unrelenting bias against my very simple, very rational arguments. Reality check.

soph · 2003-03-17 21:36:44

You've proven nothing. Your entire argument revolves around a simantic attempt by Proudhon to separate property from possession.

If you care to think you've shown that anarchy is somehow the only rational system, go ahead. I can't stop you. Unfortunately, economics disagrees.

If your arguments ever became somewhat convincing, all I would have to do is open one of the doctorate level economics textbooks lying around the house.

And yet, you've failed to show how! In basic soph fasion, you simply make a obviously wrong statement and hope that it goes unchallenged!

This is exactly the problem. My statement is based on real facts. You have failed to provide anything to dispute this. Again, all I'd have to do is open a textbook.

The Laws of Thermodynamics
The Conservation of Mass

Thermodynamics has to do with energy, and conservation of mass has to do with the universe retaining an equal amount of mass at all times. Englighten me.

soph · 2003-03-17 21:42:42

Nah, and if you insist on keeping the argument alive, I can quite easily go back and quote your absurdities. This is, after all, the same person who thinks that ?spend[ing] what you put onto [a debit card]? isn't prepayment.

Whatever you say, Josh. A credit card and a debit card are completely different things. You can insist otherwise however much you want, there's a reason they don't call it a "prepaid credit card" at banks. Because it's not.

soph · 2003-03-17 21:44:51

You can't even take a simple metaphor without going off in these endless tangents.

Maybe because it was a major point in the thread (which is called "money"?) Aren't debit cards and credit cards both forms of payment?

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-17 21:51:20

::sigh::

Why the non-reply? You could have at least refuted my statements with some intereting drivel, but no...

I like how you reiterate that I've failed with my arguments, but you don't reply to anything I've said at all. It's tiresome, but in a way, funny.

Thermodynamics has to do with energy, and conservation of mass has to do with the universe retaining an equal amount of mass at all times.

Conservation of Mass is a relatively archaic term to talk about basic chemical reactions not undergoing mass change. That is, any ecosystem relies on this fact of nature. That when a plant grows, is eaten, absorbed, and exhausted, all the molecules can be used in another plant again, without mass loss. As long as you have potential energy, this can occur.

When I said the thing about ?very little to no loss in the system? I was explicitly referring to chemical reactions. A hab can be a perfectly self sustained ecosystem, and yes, this is without invoking high level technology.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-17 21:52:19

A credit card and a debit card are completely different things.

Yes, I didn't say they were identical.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-17 21:54:55

Aren't debit cards and credit cards both forms of payment?

Yes, where did I say otherwise?

soph · 2003-03-17 21:58:12

I know what conservation of mass is, but how does this create the perfect economy?

You always lose resources in an economy->the conservation of mass doesn't apply, because you have transformed your products to a waste form (your body doesn't have much use for urine). On an economic level, unless you have an agrarian society, conservation of mass really means nothing!

Oh, but I think my replies are much better than, "I've proven this, because I commented on it in another thread." Maybe you should actually read what I write rather than picking out catch phrases.

Why do I even bother debating the point? Anarchy, socialism, and communism had their glory day in the 1850s as a reaction to laissez faire capitalism, but that time has passed, and capitalism has evolved and endured, whereas the other systems have not.

So I'll continue to rely on real economics, while you can go ahead and preach anarchy.

Getting back to the actual thread, I still think an incentive is needed for workers to motivate themselves, which is where flexible wages, and capitalism come into play.

Palomar · 2003-03-17 22:01:53

A credit card and a debit card are completely different things.
Yes, I didn't say they were identical.

*I've become so spoiled with having a debit card that I can't imagine how I got along before without one. Beats carrying cash around all the time (though I like to have a few dollars and coins tucked into my purse too). My bank doesn't charge for use of the debit card at all, but apparently some businesses in my small city may start to charge for use of debit cards. Pffffttt on them; they won't get my business.

Sorry if this got a bit off-topic. I just wanted to pitch for debit cards.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-17 22:10:59

I know what conservation of mass is, but how does this create the perfect economy?

It says that ?as long as we have energy, we can do stuff??

You always lose resources in an economy->the conservation of mass doesn't apply, because you have transformed your products to a waste form (your body doesn't have much use for urine).

This shows how narrow minded people can be. Even on Earth our waste is converted and recycled into something useful. Methane from sewage is actually used to power filtering machines in most places!

On Mars and in space things like this will have to be expanded greatly. Your body may not have use for the chemicals in your urine, but your body does need water, and guess what, your urine is mostly made of water. Oh no! Gross...

I recall reading something recently on Slashdot about resorts recycling waste water to make snow. Bloody brilliant. A hotel ?wastes? a lot of water. Just imagine how many showers are taken every morning. Common sense tells you to simple filter it and use it for something else rather than just letting it go to waste.

Keeping waste water from going into the public sewer, and recycling it locally makes a lot more sense, since once it gets into the public sewage, it's even harder to filter.

Reminds me of the hilarious time clark told me the only reason we'd be going out into space is after the Earth was ?used up...?

On an economic level, unless you have an agrarian society, conservation of mass really means nothing!

Ahah, what silliness! I've already shown that it means something. There are places that are saving thousands of dollars a year recycling their waste water!

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/01/29/2352230.shtml

Oh, but I think my replies are much better than, "I've proven this, because I commented on it in another thread."

Oh c'mon, I say that because the arguments become circular and we start to talk about the same stuff over and over again. It's tiresome.

So I'll continue to rely on real economics, while you can go ahead and preach anarchy.

If the conversation of mass ?doesn't matter? in ?real economics? then I pity you. What I talk about is factual and realistic.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-17 22:15:08

Yeah, Cindy, I had a debit card for several years when they first came out. I loved that thing.

And, ironically, since this actually goes exactly where I was going with that point; I stopped using it when my own brother took it and basically emptied my account.

And no, I didn't get my money back. I would have had to file charges on my own brother (yeah right, he might be a stupid prick, but I wouldn't do that), and then, I don't think I would've got all my money back (I didn't delve any further than that).

clark · 2003-03-18 09:54:22

Finally, some criticism. Thanks Soph.

So I'm being called out, eh? Utopia. What a horrible idea to strive towards. What a hopeless endeavor. Too many things can go wrong. It's been dreamt, and if it were possible, it would have been achieved long ago. We have more important things to do than worry about idle and bankrupt ideas.

Now, replace 'Utopia' with Mars and reread the previous paragraph.

Aim high, hope for the bulls-eye, expect somewhere in the middle, and forget about the bottom- that's where we started and it isn't going to make anything any better.

Hmm, this is true, you do have a potential for depotism!

It does, but despotism works counter to the system. If a despot does take over a Community, they are trapped becuase they still need to make the individuals within the Community happy- they still need to give them an incentive to work beyond their contract. However, I envisioned a simple system of republican democracy. Individuals simply elect a Steering board that appoints the various leaders of the Community government. This is how a majority of US towns are set up. You elect council members, they choose a mayor. At anytime a general referundum can be called by the people of the Community to remove council elected leaders (think of it as being able to go over the head of Bush and get rid of Ashcroft). (now this is a mere suggestion to ililustrate, and not neccessarily the end-all-be-all of how it's going to be in terms of government dynamics)

Personally, I don't see why The Community wouldn't strive for comfortable suits, or ‘luxurious’ anything , for that matter, unless there was some invisible force doing so.

True Josh, and it was merely to demonstrate a point. However, luxary items can be anything not related to survival. Things that are provided by the Community will neccessarily be on the "skimpier side"- the Community is a business, so everything it has to provide is overhead. The more basic overhead costs, the more the entire Community has to work. If you want to motivate the Community workers (the government ones) simply add a system of bonuses for those indivduals who find more effecient ways, or better ways to procure a good or service for the Community.

Is the government always the best decision making body? No.

No instution is the best decision making body. So it is in our best interests to allow for the change or modification of any decision made by any instution. You don't want single individuals, or small groups to call the shots- you want their ability to do balanced by others ability. Thus, checks and balances.

Now, on Mars, we have some new aspects of reality that we must come to grips with: The individual versus the Society. Now this might be a primarily Western argument, based on our culture, but on Mars, we must relaize that without the Community- without the State, there is no individual.

Here on Earth, individuals agree to get along and form a Society to better facilitate thwe interactions between the individuals within the group. At any time we can disband this Society becuase ultimetly, we don't need each other. I can live in the grass, eating grass, if I so choose.

On Mars, you can't do this. You can't even consider it. The option to return to a State of Nature is sacrificed the moment you board a rocket to Mars, or are born there. There is no option to disband from a common agreement between man- to do so is to jepordize all others. Think about what I am saying before you respond. Think about what your favorite economic principle IS before you respond. All the forms of government and economics we have played with here on Earth are transitory systems that enable individuals to come together as long as it suits them. Eventually each system, every one of them, has disolved as the system is corrupted from transitory and useful to each individual, to lasting and useful to certain indiviuals. This then develops into a dissolution of the system, and the creation of a new tranistory system that deals with the previous corruption. The cycle then begins again.

That's history. That's the pattern. And this is the problem with space colonization.

And capitalism directly allows people to satisfy their wants and needs.

True, but so is the system I am outlining. Individuals are rewarded for effort, for accomplishments. This translates into the only thing that this effort is good for: luxary items. They don't need to worry about essential items becuase it comes part and parcel with the deal. The simple fact of the matter is we don't want to be spacing deadbeats. We don't want an atmosphere of personal struggle against one another- we want teams, community, togetherness. We want strong bonds, not weak ones. This leads to a safer community atmosphere, and greater effecincy. Consider some of the darker things I have suggested in the past- the need for security at every turn. This is the world of strangers on Mars. You cannot trust a stranger- that's what thousands of years of our history, and our instincts, teach us. You can trust a member of your Community (usually). Your goals are more in synch than a stranger.

In a mature economy, communism, anarchy, and pure socialism are no more valid on Mars than on Earth.

Not true. Social stability is tantamount. Any system that undermines social stability will not work on Mars. You can't have riots on Mars. You can't have people sitting in their evac suits while 10 day repairs are being made to the doem because people got upset about a law some Mayor instutited. You can't have people stealing from one another becuase that may lead to violence- one upset person can ruin the whole party for everyone else. Part of my musings also include a requirement to vote for all adults. To not vote would be tantamount to absolving your relationship with the Community. It is to enter into a form of slavery, which is unacceptable. To this end, I would also envision an option of "rejection" as a choice to vote on anything, or anyone. To reject is to simply declare all options untenable. Think of a presidential election where enough rejection votes invalidates all canadites running. Couple this with the previous system I was talking about- let the Council members choose a several canadites for Mayor, which are then voted on by the population. A rejection vote would cause the Council members to have to choose new canadites.

So now you have 100 people. You also have to divide the resources among those 100 people. Which means either a) inefficiency with dealing with a larger population, or b) more costs to develop smaller scale distribution methods.

LArger populations allow for greater wealth to be aggreagated- which means you can do bigger things, or you can get more things. Think of it like the difference between a big city and a small rural town. Where are you more likely to have choice in terms of buying things? Why?

So they work longer hours, but have no direct incentive to work harder hours?

Sure they do- they can receive bonuses as well. How hard they work is a function of many things, and I believe it is well outside this discussion. If you want though, can deal with this issue later.

It failed because the resources didn't exist, and workers were not motivated, because there was equal distribution no matter what.

I think it failed for many reasons, and you would need a better understanding of Russian history to appreciate that. I am offering a system where there is motivators, checks and balances, and equal ownership for all.

So Albert Einstein's work is just as valuable as a freshly college-graduated physicist?

Absolutely. The value of one human is exactly equal to that of any other human. Everything else is a lie. However, in terms of subjective value to others, we can all agree that Albert is more valuable than the Graduate (unless you ask his mother). Now, a Community may be willing to have this individual work less so they stay within the Community (remember, the Community benefits by selling this individuals services) or it may look to give them yearly bonuses to keep them there. So once again, individuals do have a motivation to work harder, or become an expert in their field- doing so makes them more valuable to the Community, and the Community directly benefits becuase that individuals work is worth more to the Community now. So the entire Community benefits.

Why would the world's brightest minds be attracted to these communities? They receive no bonus for being a higher level.

Did I answer the question?

Enough for now, let me know what other questions you have. Thanks for the input.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-18 11:14:44

[...] simply add a system of bonuses for those indivduals who find more effecient ways, or better ways to procure a good or service for the Community.

Ahh, therein lies the problem.

Because those individuals would then be in a position to decide whether they make something efficient for the community, thus profiting a little, or making something less efficient so that some competitor would give people to buy his stuff, potentially profiting much more.

How do we make it so that corruption can't happen? A mere extra incentive does nothing. I think a good solution would be to make it so that all innovations and basic information is open to the pubic, but this opens up a whole new pandoras box to some people.

Anyway, I find it very interesting how we chose to ?defend? your stance.

And I find it simply awful that I'm going to side with soph partially...

LArger populations allow for greater wealth to be aggreagated- which means you can do bigger things, or you can get more things.

I think he was talking, explicitly, about political efficiency. Even if you do have greather wealth, if that wealth is centralized, it is harder to distribute it as the system becomes bigger.

If you've been in need (and I have, believe me), you'd know that the welfare system (in big cities, even) is quite clogged up, but public charties, even with overwelming need, are much more efficient at helping you out. The welfare system must go by certain guidelines, you have to sign up for certain things (do you have kids, etc), and you gotta go to a certain place to get whatever you need and so on, but the charities have their own common sense set of rules (?leave no man behind, etc?). The charities are largely decentralized, but the welfare system isn't.

True, you can get more things done the more wealth you have (that's the whole point of globalization, right?), but to say that this makes you more efficient, especially when it comes to distribution, I think is not really the case. You have to add another factor in the mix (ie, how are things being distributed?).

clark · 2003-03-18 12:01:01

You might be missing the point of the system- there is no need for chairty. All basic necceszities are provided for. You can't be homeless. You can't starve. What you have to work for are the extras. This whole issue of decentralization and centraliztion is a moot point. It becomes centered on the best way to distribute luxaries- the extras that every one wants to improve their quality of life.

As for who gets a bonus or what not, there can be a system of review- appraisals. i'm not saying their won't be bosses- or people to evaluate others.

Byron · 2003-03-18 12:36:09

The weather outside is getting mighty warm....time for a swim...

Soph, I can see where you're coming from with your points about capitalistic systems....but I'd like to take issue with some of them, and explain why I think any future Mars community will be highly socialistic in nature.

In the late 1920's, the paradigm of the US capitalistic economy crumpled under the weight of the Great Depression. The Great Depression was the wholesale failure of "traditional" capitalistics economics, pure and simple. As a result, the United States instituted a whole series of *socialistic* laws and institutions that still exist today - the labor laws, Social Security, public works projects, redistribution of the nation's wealth, etc. However, the transformation of the American economy didn't end there. Following WWII, the GI Bill was passed, and millions of people bought homes with abundent government assistance after receiving their state-sponsored education.

Thus, the modern American economy was born...which is far, far from being purely capitalistic. Imagine what life would be like today if there were no labor laws, no Social Security, no regulation of industry, no Interstate highways, no Fannie Mae mortgages... There would be no middle class, the skies would be black from the endless burning of cheap coal, 1% of the population would live in palaces while everyone else lived in penury. Chances are, we would be entering a new Dark Ages right about now, if it wasn't for the bulwark of the Federal government controlling nearly every aspect of the economy. Left to their own devices, the most powerful members of the human society will ensure that they hold all the cards, leaving everyone else in the dirt. This is called greed, (and survival of the fittest...an primal, animalistic trait if there ever was one), and while it is one of the strongest motivators there is, it has to be tightly controlled, or our modern society simply would not exist.

On Mars, people will have to take this idea of a controlled economy to a whole another level altogether, or there is no sense in even bothering with the whole idea of humans-on-Mars in the first place. There will be absolutely no place for greed on Mars whatsoever...as everyone's lives depend on 100% mutual cooperation. The idea of "rich people" and "poor people" will be impossible on Mars, as there will be no option for the "poor people" to become wealthy, which is at least somewhat possible in modern America. Instead, the poor would simply revolt against the rich. In a wholly enclosed, isolated environment where leaving is not exactly an option, the idea of a few overlords controlling the lion's share of economic resources will result in the collapse of the community, exactly as Clark has described time and time again on this board.

The thing I have difficulty with is why some people have to treat "capitalism" as if it was the Gospel. There is no law of nature that the human race must abide by this kind of system...it just happens to be the most efficient method of getting the most goods to the most people at this point in time. I think it would be the utmost folly to assume that this is how people will live now and forevermore, no matter what we do or where we go in this vast universe of ours. Someday, humans will acheive such a degree of self-understanding that our ancient primal instincts (such as wholesale greed and questing for power over others) will likely be vanquished for good. At least this what I hope, or we will not be advancing much further than we have already.

I'd like to write some more, but I'll leave at this for now...

One other thing..I think Proudhon rocks..lol :;):

B

clark · 2003-03-18 15:40:44

The idea of "rich people" and "poor people" will be
impossible on Mars, as there will be no option for the "poor people" to become wealthy, which is at least somewhat possible in
modern America. Instead, the poor would simply revolt against the rich. In a wholly enclosed, isolated environment where
leaving is not exactly an option, the idea of a few overlords controlling the lion's share of economic resources will result in the
collapse of the community, exactly as Clark has described time and time again on this board.

See, yell it loud enough, long enough, and someone will hear.

I'm still surprise no one has pointed out some of the more obvious flaws of my proposal. Perhaps there are some who might consider helping:

What are the options to a Community to deal with negative behavior of individuals? How do you deal with crime in a sensible manner? For those who advocate deportation, what do you do if you can't deport anyone to anywhere? Conisder yourself stuck with the problem- what do you do with petty theives?

While I accept that we can never escape crime, I am inclined to think that there would be less crime to begin with on Mars for two reasons- there is no reason to steal, and secondly, with the amopuntt of monitoring that will exsist by virtue of the setting and technology, most people will think better of trying to commit a crime they know they can't get away with (part of the criminal equation is assessing the odds of being caught)

Thoughts? (or am I now way off topic... should I take this elsewhere? )

Bill White · 2003-03-18 16:25:57

"The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking - for it (money) is merely useful and only acquired for the sake of something else." Aristotle, Nicodameon Ethics

In my opinion - unless or until Martian settlements approach populations of many, many thousands of people - money will be treated like money is treated in prison or onboard US Navy ships. Some form of currency will exist for luxuries - ice cream, fancy haircuts, etc. . . but necessities wil be handled the same way meals are handled on an aircraft carrier or in a state prison.

For better or worse, I say start with rules for daily living imposed on US warships or perhaps the merchant marine and adjust from there.

Is money used at the South Pole research stations? I think not.

Bill White · 2003-03-18 16:30:55

What are the options to a Community to deal with negative behavior of individuals? How do you deal with crime in a sensible manner? For those who advocate deportation, what do you do if you can't deport anyone to anywhere? Conisder yourself stuck with the problem- what do you do with petty theives?
While I accept that we can never escape crime, I am inclined to think that there would be less crime to begin with on Mars for two reasons- there is no reason to steal, and secondly, with the amopuntt of monitoring that will exsist by virtue of the setting and technology, most people will think better of trying to commit a crime they know they can't get away with (part of the criminal equation is assessing the odds of being caught)

In my opinion planners need to start by instilling a strong sense of social cohesion. People must have a deeply ingrained and almost subconscious fear of "letting down" the group. Folks unwilling or unable to live with this need not apply.

clark · 2003-03-18 16:38:13

In my opinion - unless or until Martian settlements approach populations of many, many thousands of people - money will be treated like money is treated in prison or onboard US Navy ships.

I'm with you there Bill, but why would it have to stop, ever? The reason it dosen't continue in the 'real world' is due to some social behaviors that are allowable by our environment. That is to say, the fact that our population growth is NEVER managed, we have to eventually give up this system. A martian environment imposes a requirement that population growth is managed, always. That's the fundamental difference that will drive most of what's going to happen on Mars, or in space.

We can get away with a situation where most get what they need- the system falls apart as soon as most people don't get what they need. What is the cause for a change within the system? Population.

Mars, or in space, the threshold is almost zero. One disenfranchised person is enough to destroy an entire community. one person without opportunity, and <poof> it all goes down the tube.

People must have a deeply ingrained and almost subconscious fear of "letting down" the group. Folks unwilling or unable to live with this need not apply.

So then, any system that reinforces the value of the group is ideal...

Bill White · 2003-03-18 17:18:12

So then, any system that reinforces the value of the group is ideal...

Its a two way street - all for one and one for all - we need to respect BOTH the group and the individual.

Just today I was looking at the box for Apple Jacks cereal - seriously! - my daughter eats them, not me.

Anyway, the box reproduced one of those face illusion pictures - the pictures which "look like" 2 heads looking at each other or a goblet depending on how you look at it.

Thanks, Google!

Individual selves cannot exist without society and society cannot exist without individual selves.

Which is the right way to view the picture in the link? Faces or a goblet? I say take the same approach to whether the "rights" of the group or the "rights" of the self trump the other.

soph · 2003-03-18 18:07:03

Bill: I have no problem with socialist augmentation of capitalism (in fact, I have said before, why have laissez faire capitalism, when socialist/government regulated capitalism work better-with both factors kept to a reasonable amount-you understand what I mean here?).

clark: government employment of people for unemployed could replace welfare, as I said before. That way everyone remains productive and employed in a capitalist system!

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-18 20:13:25

clark, I should say that I was just using charity as an example of efficient resource distribution. Centralization of resources does play a role as the population gets larger. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree or something.

Byron, excellent points, as usual. It should be noted that the whole world was basically doing similar public works projects during the depression (though we were arguably the first). I find that the US actually goes too far with some of the ?socialistic programs? we have here, like say, the Pledge of Allegience thing.

I like that you like Proudhon, and I'm totally blown away. Many people I talk to say that he's a bit extreme for their tastes, and shrug off what he says. But I think that's what I like about him the most, that he's so dramatic in his presentation. I just put myself in his place 100 years ago, and imagine what it'd be like to notice these contridictions. It's not that what he says is written in stone, it's just that what he says gives one something to think about.

Bill,

In my opinion - unless or until Martian settlements approach populations of many, many thousands of people - money will be treated like money is treated in prison or onboard US Navy ships.

You know, I can agree with this, quite well. I think navy or prison life, minus the heavy authority roles, will be a good reflection of how society would form on Mars, I just try to present it in a different light than clark, since I think that the physical conditions would be much much better, and the ammount of physical freedoms would be much much more.

All in all, I think everyones positions are fairly synonymous about these sorts of things. We just chose different ways to argue how we envision things.

Byron · 2003-03-19 07:42:59

Just like to add a couple of points...

Josh, you mention that living standards will be much higher than clark suggest...are you envisioning Earth-style living standards in an early Martian settlement? I have to go with clark on this one, as so many resources and so much collective effort will be devoted to ensuring survival in an "impossible" environment that living standards will necessarily be much lower than we're accustomed here on Earth. In the early going, at least, "luxury" will be a four-letter word...there will be little, if any room for it at all. Just think of the bases in Antarctica. Anything that has to be imported from Earth will cost huge sums of money, and I think the new Martian settlers will have to depend on gracious people on Earth who will help them out by pooling donations of "comfort" items to send to Mars...as they certainly won't be able to afford them on their own..lol.

Granted, the standard of living will rise as the population increases, the cost of space travel drops, and higher levels of technology are developed to provide for the settlers' needs. But there is no way that the Martians will be able to experience the comfort and luxury we do here on Earth until Mars has been terraformed and people are able to live out in the open. As long as people are forced to live in pressurized environments, the traditional rules of economics won't work, as the free-market "cost of living" would far outstrip what the average settler would be able to afford. I also have to agree with the idea of "aircraft carrier"-style living...with all the meals prepared and taken in a central dining hall, people standing watches, etc. Without this kind of orderly, well-oiled way of life, the settlers would putting themselves at grave risk due to the incredibly harsh environment outside.

In short, preserving one's life comes first. The "goodies" of life come second. Even so, people will be tripping over themselves to put themselves in this kind of situation, as the excitement of the great "Martian Adventure" would surely outweigh whatever material and personal sacrifices that will be required of them.

To me, the choice is simple: Live well here on Earth and have a life filled with predictability and ennui, -or- face discomfort and hardship on Mars, and live the most exciting life possible. Which one would you chose?

B

dicktice · 2003-03-19 09:21:30

Are you kidding? Go for it...Mars or bust!

clark · 2003-03-19 09:44:38

Its a two way street - all for one and one for all - we need to respect BOTH the group and the individual.

I certainly agree with this premise. However (always the but), the environment on Mars requires that the needs of the group must come first. Consider a single individual who has a set of skills neccessary to operate the Community. This person just can't decide to up and leave one day, to do so jepordizes the community. Here is an example where the individual must come second to the needs of the group. This is not to say that this person is a slave, and must remain indefinitley, but that actions between the group and individual need to look at the effects of personal decisions. This board is predominately American, and this battle is based on the cultural assumptions we all share. Individual versus group. Is it any wonder that I am cast as the would be tyrant?

Individual selves cannot exist without society and society cannot exist without individual selves.

On mars this is true, I am not quite sure I believe it is meaningful on Earth. Individual selves can exsist without society- it is a return to a state of nature. Of course, I'm just nitpicking a nice quote...

Which is the right way to view the picture in the link? Faces or a goblet? I say take the same approach to whether the "rights" of the group or the "rights" of the self trump the other.

The lesson I took away from that was "you see what you want to see."

government employment of people for unemployed could replace welfare, as I said before. That way everyone remains productive and employed in a capitalist system!

This is an aspect of what I am proposing. The COmmunity looks to employ its people as best as possible, becuase it returns more to the Commmunity.

clark, I should say that I was just using charity as an example of efficient resource distribution. Centralization of resources does play a role as the population gets larger. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree or something.

Hmm, how to explain this: Resources are distributed effeciently in this system because it is based on a supply and demand model. People demand certain items- everyone will want an extra mars suit (an example). People will work for this. as people aquire more, they will work less. That means demand falls, supply increases, prices drop (the amount you need to work for an item). If there is a limited supply of an itemt, say Earth food stuff. Supply is limited, demand is high,. people will work more to get that item. High demand items in limited supply will illicit the most work, low demand items, in major supplies will illicit less work. This acts as a foundation upon which to build a basic economy. No? I still fail to see how this system would be less effecient than anything else.

I have to go with clark on this one, as so many resources and so much collective effort will be devoted to ensuring survival in an "impossible" environment that living standards will necessarily be much lower than we're accustomed here on Earth.

Perhaps we can clarify this issue a bit, it would help me out, how exactly are you defining "living conditions"?

In the early going, at least, "luxury" will be a four-letter word...there will be little, if any room for it at all. Just think of the bases in Antarctica.

Put on the imagination hat: Imagine sending 6 people to Mars. Permanently. There only job is to build a base capable of supporting 100 people. These six people are sent by a private group to mars to do this. They live in cramped conditions, in a very spartan base. Everything they have, or do is related to building the base to support 100 people. These 6 people have to put in grueling 16 hour days, but all their basic needs are provided for. Now, half a martian year later, they've managed to build this base. So what happens?

100 people are sent to the new Mars base, some additional maintainence and constructions crews to help the first 6, but everyone else is a Scientist or whatever. These 80 other people (lets say the other 20 are the construction crews) are the key to improving EVERYONE's quality of life. They provide a product or service that can be traded for resources to aquire luxaries for everyone else. Everyone is still working long hours out of neccessity- everythign costs so much that they want (it has to be imported from earth). So the constrcution crews continue to build and expand the base. Now they try for 1000 people. As the Community grows, evryone can begin to work less, becuase the COmmunity can provide some things for itself now- and what it can't, there are more people to work, to help defray the cost- so the net result is everyone working slightly less than before. As the work load of neccessity decreases, individuals then have the opportunity to work more- which means more individual incentive to work harder, or longer.

To start this, all that is needed is the intital group of construction crews. And I might add, this would fit very nicely with the whole concept of Mars direct.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-03-17 21:27:59

Re: Money - on mars

#27 2003-03-17 21:36:44

Re: Money - on mars

#28 2003-03-17 21:42:42

Re: Money - on mars

#29 2003-03-17 21:44:51

Re: Money - on mars

#30 2003-03-17 21:51:20

Re: Money - on mars

#31 2003-03-17 21:52:19

Re: Money - on mars

#32 2003-03-17 21:54:55

Re: Money - on mars

#33 2003-03-17 21:58:12

Re: Money - on mars

#34 2003-03-17 22:01:53

Re: Money - on mars

#35 2003-03-17 22:10:59

Re: Money - on mars

#36 2003-03-17 22:15:08

Re: Money - on mars

#37 2003-03-18 09:54:22

Re: Money - on mars

#38 2003-03-18 11:14:44

Re: Money - on mars

#39 2003-03-18 12:01:01

Re: Money - on mars

#40 2003-03-18 12:36:09

Re: Money - on mars

#41 2003-03-18 15:40:44

Re: Money - on mars

#42 2003-03-18 16:25:57

Re: Money - on mars

#43 2003-03-18 16:30:55

Re: Money - on mars

#44 2003-03-18 16:38:13

Re: Money - on mars

#45 2003-03-18 17:18:12

Re: Money - on mars

#46 2003-03-18 18:07:03

Re: Money - on mars

#47 2003-03-18 20:13:25

Re: Money - on mars

#48 2003-03-19 07:42:59

Re: Money - on mars

#49 2003-03-19 09:21:30

Re: Money - on mars

#50 2003-03-19 09:44:38

Re: Money - on mars

Board footer