You are not logged in.
Here in lies the problem.
Corporate:
The rocket is purchased for a trip to mars via a corporation that means those on it are employees to the work that the buyer is wanting done. For the individual all of you time is allotted via that ticket paid for by the corporation. You can not make any earnings beyond the paid for work of the corporation. Sure your free time will allow for you to do what ever you would desire but since the ticket costs are more than a home mortgage you have no income that is extra to do anything with once on mars. That leaves only bartering for a period of time until there is a cash source to make purchases with. That said the trip home for the corporate is probably only for a contingent for if you are sick otherwise its the contract that you sign as the employee. So there is no goods to go home that you may have produced with you free time.
Agency nation
The agency is the one paying for the activity while on mars and most agencies can not earn any money from goods or activity that would be profit as that is how these are set up.
Tourist ride share seat
Limited contract for none crew or corporate employed. This has limits on resources that one is provided. They are free to do what they want but if these people have not a return trip clause for goods then they too are just site seers. So unless they can make there own rocket to return goods and or make a system on mars to provide beyond what is sent that people want there is no earnings.
Sponsor
That is a purchase trip but with hooks into what you can or can not do with that ticket. It is a subset of the ride share tourist.
Offline
Here in lies the problem.
Corporate:
The rocket is purchased for a trip to mars via a corporation that means those on it are employees to the work that the buyer is wanting done.
Sounds like NASA so far...
For the individual all of you time is allotted via that ticket paid for by the corporation. You can not make any earnings beyond the paid for work of the corporation.
BS. Depends on your contract. A standard employment contract allows you to go to your employer and say I want to do x additional work with another employer.
Sure your free time will allow for you to do what ever you would desire but since the ticket costs are more than a home mortgage you have no income that is extra to do anything with once on mars.
One moment you are saying the employer is paying your ticket, now you're saying you are paying for it yourself. Doesn't make sense. But whoever pays the ticket, there will be a lot of money sloshing around.
That leaves only bartering for a period of time until there is a cash source to make purchases with. That said the trip home for the corporate is probably only for a contingent for if you are sick otherwise its the contract that you sign as the employee. So there is no goods to go home that you may have produced with you free time.
What are you on about? Bartering!! The early pioneers will be paid in dollars or whatever back on Earth. They won't have to barter for anything! lol You're not making a lot of sense.
Agency nation
The agency is the one paying for the activity while on mars and most agencies can not earn any money from goods or activity that would be profit as that is how these are set up.
Uber and all the rest seem to do quite well back on Earth.
Tourist ride share seat
Limited contract for none crew or corporate employed. This has limits on resources that one is provided. They are free to do what they want but if these people have not a return trip clause for goods then they too are just site seers. So unless they can make there own rocket to return goods and or make a system on mars to provide beyond what is sent that people want there is no earnings.
This is just crazy stuff. Space X won't enter into any agreements with anyone unless everything is paid for up front there and back. People will work within those parameters.
Sponsor
That is a purchase trip but with hooks into what you can or can not do with that ticket. It is a subset of the ride share tourist.
Sponsors have always controlled the behaviour of those they sponsor...nothing new there. If it works on Earth, it works on Mars.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Space x is a corporate and that is not a Nasa.
Nasa can purchase the ride up and down from space x but they do not own the rocket as that is still the corporate property.
Space x can not tell Nasa or its people that use the rocket what they are going to do during the duration that its in use as they are the employee's of Nasa.
Now a corporate owned mission sets all the rules of those that ride and work for the corporation.
Offline
louis,
Okay, but this forum is about civilisation and culture, not politics and economy... I'd like to keep the conversation to how the environment of Mars may shape the culture of those who inhabit it please.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Well you opened this by asserting the key factors that shape a culture - and you stated they related to geography. I don't disagree they are very important.
But you can hardly object to people saying what other factors shape a culture and you'd have a hard time arguing politics and the economy won't matter. It will be vitally important as to who gets to Mars first - whether it will be the CCP regime, Musk/Space X, NASA, the Russian government, the United Arab Emirates or someone else. Each will put their stamp on the culture. It's one of the reasons I am a huge backer of Musk's is that for all his faults he seems to have an understanding of the importance of freedom, free speech and human consciousness.
louis,
Okay, but this forum is about civilisation and culture, not politics and economy... I'd like to keep the conversation to how the environment of Mars may shape the culture of those who inhabit it please.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Which gets me back to the post 17 images of mars in that its similar to the earth deserts but with out the means to protect your self you die almost instantly.
We can go for science and we can go for colonization but the means to get there as well as the housing need to be factored into the over cost.
Offline
Elon Musk: Mars civilization is 20-30 years after first landing
https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/elon- … om-landing
Caves of Mars?
Dark Pits on the Moon May Be the Comfiest Hangouts for Humans
https://www.cnet.com/science/space/dark … or-humans/
Alien Life?
Mysterious life forms discovered in ancient lava caves of Hawaii
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trend … 88991.html
China VS NASA, SpaceX Breaking Records
vid
Fraser Cain Universetoday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ZvuZhDquA
Also mentions SpaceX, Asteroids, South Korea's missions, NASA's MSR, Japan,
What is Elon Musk's Starship? - BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55564448
Elon Musk responds to news about secret twins: ‘Doing my best to help the underpopulation crisis’
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-mus … 58067.html
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-07-30 11:22:32)
Offline
Will Mars have its own factory, schools and museum?
Claim your space: Smithsonian offers free passes for Air and Space reopening
https://www.space.com/smithsonian-air-s … ing-passes
Offline
Mars is a desert, as cold as Antarctica, with no breathable air, no potable water and no natural food supplies and toxic soil. It isn't a place where grizzled, fiercely independant people are going to be able to set up home and grow vast fields of wheat for export down the Mississipi. Every aspect of life will require technology and cooperation to sustain it. It will be a very different situation to the colonisation of America.
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
I wonder if a blend of pioneer and Dutch culture might work? They have after all terraformed some of their country. Perhaps the Mormons in Utah may be an example, where they must have set up cooperative irrigation schemes, but they were pioneers.
Done
Last edited by Void (2022-09-17 10:58:09)
Done.
Offline
Calliban,
Does it strike you as the least bit odd that no other country has enabled the people now living in America, but not originally from America, who are creating the technology to make a Mars colony a possibility to begin with? Pioneering spirit is what is required to colonize Mars. The historical pioneers developed their own technology to make their own way of life possible. Why would we think that the people colonizing Mars would be dramatically different? 200 years ago, we had the prevalent attitudes and technologies associated with humanity that existed 200 years ago. This is today. It's a new era with new technology, but much of the same ways of thinking. Circumstances have changed a lot, but the people really haven't changed all that much. All the same basic ideas that existed 200 years ago are still alive and well, whether they help or hinder humanity. Some are now more prevalent than others, and that has changed over time.
Mars won't be colonized by a bunch of communists or collectivists. If such a thing were feasible, then it would've been done by now. All it takes is one bad idea or bad reaction stemming from a bad idea to destroy a colony of Army Ants. This notion that American pioneers didn't band together to help each other fight against the natives or to fight against the environment itself is also a lot of revisionist history, or something you were taught that never happened the way you think it happened to begin with. The pioneers wanted to lead lives without being micromanaged by governments with fundamentally bad ideas, and that's why they went out West to pursue a new life.
Most of the people who are seriously thinking about living and working on Mars are from America. It's chaotic, the living environment is incredibly hostile, and the future is far from certain, yet we will adapt and overcome anyway. The lack of certainty isn't seen as a major impediment to survival, but an opportunity to grow in ways not seen since the pioneers of the Old West. Anyone who isn't "fiercely independent" probably won't survive on Mars, psychologically-speaking. People who want predictable outcomes will choose to stay here on Earth and do what they've always done, which leaves far less room for personal improvement. We will certainly kill people in this great endeavor, maybe a lot of them before a city is fully established, but we also think expanding beyond Earth is so important to our continued growth that we're building all the technology to do that.
That still leaves plenty of room for all of the old and bad ideas to exist, but most of the people living on Mars won't imbibe in those ideas, because the people who hold them are either completely risk-averse or so wantonly self-destructive that they lack the technology and organization or monetary wealth to consider going there to begin with. Think about how much money has been squandered on welfare programs that haven't materially improved the welfare of the people they purport to benefit. Wouldn't such programs produce fewer and fewer welfare recipients over time, almost eliminating the need for such programs to exist, assuming their reason for existing was helping people through their personal financial struggles, in order to allow them to stand on their own two feet, without government handouts?
Online
Kbd512, what you say sounds reasonable. I merely wish to make the point that Mars is nothing like America as an environment. There are no arable soils or fresh water. No air, or at least not anything that we can breath. No rivers, no timber, no furs, no natives that evolved beyond bacteria. And temperatures are extremely cold. I do not see how the sort of homesteading that settled the west is going to be practical on Mars. The circumstances are completely different. People will live in densely populated settlements, which will probably be underground. Food production is difficult. It may use pressurised, heated greenhouses. It may make use of algae flowing through panels. We aren't sure what works best yet. But we do know it will be capital intensive. There are no prairies that can be ploughed and planted with endless wheat fields. We will need a lot of energy and a lot of equipment just to stay alive.
The social environment will be different to frontier America. Life will depend upon capital intensive public works that can only be produced through cooperative effort. This tells us that Mars will probably be a high tax environment from day one. Society will be intolerant of anyone not seen to be pulling their weight, because everyone else will be carrying them. The plus side is that everyone involved will get to see the fruits of their efforts and there will be a shared vision that everyone can feel that they are part of. But there is limited scope for the sort independant people that want to break out on their own and found independant farms away from overbearing government. Unless they are rich enough to afford their own nuclear reactor, their own fuel factory, pressurised greenhouses, mining epuipment, etc. The planet is just too hostile to allow the sort of independant homesteading that the US became famous for. You can't just head oht into the wilderness and build a log cabin out of local timber and plant the soil expecting it to grow food. It is going to be a different place. More like Germany or Sweden than 19th century US.
There are some aspects of American culture that I think will play well on the Martian frontier. The Christian religion is very good at building communities that encourage people to pull together. The Amish have proven how well that can work.
Small town America has a tradition of folk getting together and working on community projects. From what I can tell, newcomers are expected to get involved quite quickly. This side of American culture will need to go into overdrive on the Martian frontier. Survival will depend on reliable air and water recycling and the growth of food under difficult conditions. I don't think this neccesarily implies big-state communism, where everyone relies upon an overbearing big brother. Such a state of affairs encourages people to assume the state will take care of everything and do nothing themselves. I think Martian culture will emphasise the ideals of personal responsibility, hard work and sharing. These are exactly the ideals that European countries have turned away from as states have grown more powerful. On Mars, for a long time to come, you will know the peopie you are living with and they will know you. That kind of close village environment tends to enforce good behaviour.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-09-20 04:39:00)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Calliban,
Thanks for reminding me about why my ancestors left Europe. You assert that America should run its Mars colony similarly to the way the Germans run Germany. Oh, boy. Germany is a country that can't keep their lights on, that makes energy deals with Russia, a country that hates Germans (for historical reasons), and mass murdered its own people over their "master race" beliefs. For some reason, those are the people you think represent "the way forward" for a Mars colony- a group of people who have put precisely zero people into space, despite the technical capabilities required to do so. As an American, I think we're gonna have to pass on that idea. I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but that seems like a really bad idea.
Online
kbd,
More like running it the way the Dutch run/ran the Netherlands. The polders are of prime importance.
I don't know if there *are* any examples of settlement that are comparable. The closest we've come is probably oil rigs.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Terraformer,
I'd be willing to look at how the Dutch historically ran their society. At the present time, they're shooting at their farmers because the farmers are, understandably, upset that their own government is trying to steal their land. The various explanations for the thefts are range from population, to solving their climate change conundrum, to simple garden variety thievery to give the farmers' land to their political donor class.
Online
For kbd512 re #40
Not disputing your report ... just asking for reference to be included in your post, if you have time to go back to add them.
I'm intrigued by your report, and will ask Google for leads.
In light of the (I believe to be correct) history that the government of the Netherlands created land out of the sea with dikes, it would seem (without having read the reports from which you are drawing your post) that more land needs to be reclaimed from the sea.
I'll also be looking for any reports that might exist on how the Dutch are planning to deal with 30 feet of ocean rise, as seems likely since humans are (most likely) incapable of preventing the melting of the glaciers.
(th)
Offline
For kbd512 re your post #40
I believe you have made an error in your post....
According to the article I will paste below, the government is NOT trying to take land away from farmers.
That is a false reading of the situation, as nearly as I can tell. It appears that the government is (understandably) trying to cut down on pollution that comes from farms. I would deduce that the matter was not thought through, if the farmers involved were upset enough to attempt to break through barricades, and to prompt armed officers to discharge their weapons.
Politico Pro Free
FROM
Police fire on Dutch farmers protesting environmental rules
Farmers have blocked supermarkets, distributions centers and roads in response to government plans to cut nitrogen emissions.NETHERLANDS-DEMO-POLITICS-AGRICULTURE-FARMING
Farmers remove tractors forming a blockade at a supermarket chain "Boni" during a demonstration in Nijkerk, The Netherlands | Robin Van Lonkhuijsen/ANP/AFP via Getty
BY CAMILLE GIJS
JULY 6, 2022 10:17 AMDutch police fired shots at tractor-riding farmers who were protesting against plans to cut nitrogen emissions on Tuesday evening in northern Netherlands.
Police said they were responding to a "threatening situation" when the farmers, who were attempting to push past a blockade to get onto a highway in the province of Friesland, started to drive their tractors into officers and their vehicles.
According to the Friesland police, their shots hit a tractor, but no one was injured. Three suspects were arrested. The Rijksrecherche, the Dutch government's internal investigator, said it would look into the events given police had discharged their weapons.
A spokesperson for the Friesland police did not respond to inquiries, but said a statement would be released later Wednesday.
Dutch farmers have this week been protesting government plans that could require farmers to use less fertilizer and reduce their livestock numbers, which could force some farms to shut.
The Dutch government wants to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia, which are produced by livestock, by 2030. Cuts could reach 70 percent in some areas, under the plans.
In response, Dutch farmers have blocked supermarkets, distributions centers and roads in protests this week. Wednesday morning, they are expected to demonstrate at the Groningen Airport Elde, according to Dutch media.
MP Caroline van der Plas called for an "emergency debate" with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and the minister of justice and security, Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius, about the escalating protests.
MORE FROM ... CAMILLE GIJS
The events reported appear to have happened in July of this Earth year. I'd be interested in any updates that may be available.
I would like to point out that no injuries of humans appear to have occurred. The only damage reported was to the exterior of one tractor.
(th)
Offline
As a follow up to the report of Dutch farmers protesting against plans to try to reduce greenhouse gases ....
I'm looking forward to seeing more thoughtful follow up that members may be able to contribute.
As a suggestion for how this might have been better handled by government ministers, the thought of compensation for government "taking" comes to mind...
In the US (and probably other Nations) when the community of which an individual is a part decides that (for the good of the community) it must take land or other property that belongs to an individual, the concept of compensation is available.
Historically, the US has a ** very ** mixed record in it's application of this concept.
Andrew Jackson "took" entire State sized regions away from the native Americans who had "held title" to the land for thousands of years.
What the native Americans lacked was a concept of ownership, and a standing army able to put the upstart Europeans in their (rightful) place.
In the case of the Dutch farmers, if the income earned from sale of cows or their products is reduced for the good of the Nation, then it seems reasonable to me for the farmers to request (and receive) compensation equal to or greater than the lost income.
(th)
Offline
tahanson43206,
No errors were made on my part. I told you what's objectively happening in The Netherlands to the Dutch farmers and your response was, "Oh no no no, the government is taking their land for a good cause. They're cutting down on pollution and addressing climate change, you see."
Q: Is the government preventing farmers from farming their land under the guise of "cutting down on pollution" or "climate change" or "we want more land for urban areas"?
A: Yes
Q: Is the government seizing farm land that previously belonged to the farmers after forcing them to stop farming, thereby causing them to forfeit their land after they can no longer pay the taxes on their land?
A: Yes
Q: Are the farmers upset about this and willing to fight in some cases?
A: If our government prevented you from working on your computer at gunpoint and then made your taxes so burdensome that you could no longer afford to live in the house you paid for, would you be upset, or is climate change more important than living indoors and eating food?
The Native Americans lacked trained and equipped military forces in conjunction with natural resistance to common European diseases. That's why they lost their land. That cannot be undone, we cannot travel back in time 200 years to right what you feel were wrongs, so you need to accept current reality. More importantly, the Native Americans routinely engaged in warfare with each other and "stole" land from each other long before the Europeans arrived. This fanciful notion that Europeans took something that hadn't already been taken dozens of times is pure unadulterated BS. Read some Native American history if you think that's untrue. All those native American skulls that were severed from their owners before the Europeans ever arrived- what do you suppose that was about? The natives were no better or different than the Europeans in that regard. If you were an Apache who set foot on Comanche land, then they'd either kill you or make you their slave, or you'd kill them, and then you'd be living on "stolen land" if you succeeded in killing them before they killed you. That is the way of the animal kingdom, which you and I are a part of. Scribbles on paper asserting / claiming ownership does not change how the ugly natural world works and it never will.
It seems reasonable to me for the farmers to tell the government to go find something more productive to do with their time than to order farmers to stop farming when there's already a global food shortage. I don't expect you to understand this until someone removes your food sources, and then I expect you'll understand it so well you'd do just about anything to just about anyone in 3 to 7 days. Compensation comes from the tax payers, which includes the farmers. That means everyone gets poorer. Facts, not feelings. Facts don't care about your feelings.
The absolute dumbest thing we can possibly do, assuming climate change is what matters most to you, is to make everyone poor. If you don't understand why, then you need to visit a desperately poor country to see how people live there.
Online
Martian culture isn't something that we here get to choose. It is something that develops organically within a large group of people that are faced with environmental challenges. Have you ever noticed that the Germans and Russians tend to be aggressive? That is not the result of genetic defects. It is a cultural adaptation to living on flatlands and being surrounded by people that want to kill you. It makes you defensive and aggressive. The Germans were excellent industrialists, mainly because history had taught them how important it is to have a technological edge when you live in a place that cannot easily be defended. Japan in a relatively insular culture because it is an isolated island.
I think Martian culture will be different to American culture because it is a very different place to the North American continent. Even if the majority of people that go there are American, the culture you get in 100-200 years will be very different. I doubt there will be much of an environmental movement on Mars. They are likely to see nature as something to be conquered. On Mars, nature is cold rock and dust. Who cries for rocks? Food will be scarce and expensive. The American fast-food culture and obsession with more, probably won't go down well there. That is my hunch.
Maybe we here will live to see what culture emerges from the first generation of native Martians.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-09-21 15:42:32)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
and Mars is not the Hollyweird movie and Andromeda Strain is techno-thriller horror fantasy novel by Michael Crichton.
Pacific island nations suffered severe depopulation from introduced diseases as a consequence of contact with European vessels, a new study from The Australian National University shows
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/966541
According to the study, the main island of Tonga had a population decline of between 70-86 per cent once Europeans made contact.
Researchers from the ANU School of Culture, History & Language, PhD candidate Phillip Parton and ARC Future Fellow Professor Geoffrey Clark, found there were between 100,000-120,000 people in Tonga prior to European contact.
“I and my co-author used aerial laser scanning data to map residences on the main island of Tonga and then used archaeological data I collected as part of my PhD to estimate the population,” Mr Parton said.
“This improved understanding of the past has allowed us to show a significant population decline from 50,000-60,000 to 10,000 during a 50-year period on the main island of Tongatapu in the Kingdom of Tonga.
Offline