The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

Mark S · 2002-07-02 11:04:10

I've always seen human history as a succession of empires. I'm sure that many of you will take issue with this belief, but the course of world events continually repeats itself: one nation becomes an empire, that empire begets smalle colonies, and one of the colonies rises up and replaces the original empire. I feel that Mars will be no different.

A simplified summary of world history reveals the following:
1) The Egyptians were the first great society in recorded history. Eventually their culture stagnated, and the Greeks rose to power. The Macedonian Greeks would then add Egypt to its empire.

2) The Greeks established settlements in the Mediterranean which spread Greek culture to the Romans. This empowered the Romans, allowing them to over throw the Etruscans and start a republic and then an empire.

3) One of Rome's many conquests was the British Isles. The Celtic people adopted the Roman way of life, and this culture was, in turn, adopted by the Anglo-Saxons. The British would become the most prominent Western nation and then start their own empire.

4) Britain's American colonies broke away to form the United States, a nation that was forged by the values and lifestyles of the original Anglo-Saxon colonists. Although the United States is not an empire in the classical sense, it is a superpower with a wide sphere of influence.

What does this mean for Mars? My prediction is that the United States will play a pivotal role in giving birth to the Martian colony/colonies. Once these colonies can become self-reliant, they will break away from the motherland and begin a new golden age in human history.

clark · 2002-07-02 11:15:59

Aside from the oversimplification of 5,000 years of recorded human history, as well as neglecting the relative role of Asia, your argument is unfounded and predicated on some rather big "ifs".

Why would Mars be likely to usher in a new golden age for humanity? How would mars be able to compete economicaly with Earth, or even the US given the huge advantages in labor pools, resources, technological infrastructure, etc.?

All of the resources on Mars exsist in greater quantities, and are more accessible (to Earth) in asteroids- how exactly can Mars compete with that? Mars will have a small market (by any comparison to Earth), which means less incentive to develop.

Mars is more than likely going to end up a little back-water colony/base that never comes into it's own until several hundred years later (look at the economic development of Australia for a contemporay analogy).

Adrian · 2002-07-02 12:13:46

Mars is more than likely going to end up a little back-water colony/base that never comes into it's own until several hundred years later (look at the economic development of Australia for a contemporay analogy).

This really depends on whether the current development paradigm on Earth will persist and can be applied to Mars, and I don't think we can say that for sure right now. Robotic technologies, AI, and so on, offer promise of different - and faster - modes of development, on both planets. But I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion that it will take decades, probably a century or more, for Mars to 'come into its own'.

clark · 2002-07-02 12:35:45

Robotic technologies, AI, and so on, offer promise of different - and faster - modes of development, on both planets.

Do you have to change in a phone booth too?

Why on "Mars" would Mars ever need to develop faster than Earth? Our historical experience has been technological advancements and improvments that result in a better life for the people that are currently alive- there are a lot of people- however, that just isn't the case on Mars. There is no one there now, and there will probably be very few people in the future- what need is there to massively develop mars then? There would be a need on Earth due solely to the population size and scope- but Mars, come on.

I'm sure the people who live on Mars will live in the lap of luxary compared to the majority of Terrans- but those few will not be enough compared to all of earth itself.

Mark S · 2002-07-02 13:51:59

Asia does figure into my "oversimplified model of history," its just that the empires of the East do not overlap in the same way that the afforementioned ones did. For example, it was the influence of the Islamic empire in the 12th century that brought on the Renaissance, and the trade with Asia forced the European powers to sail the seas and eventually migrate to the Americas.

Why do I believe that there will be a golden age on Mars? Mankind always has a history of improving upon the past when it starts from a clean slate. The Martian society will be composed of rational, scientific people with a survivalist mindset. They will have to be highly motivated and possess the latest technology if they wish to survive. Resourcefulness, ingenuity, and ruggedness will be traits of the first Martians. And I believe that if the Martians stick to those tenets, they will become a great society.

clark · 2002-07-02 14:22:15

Asia does figure into my "oversimplified model of history," its just that the empires of the East do not overlap in the same way that the afforementioned ones did. For example, it was the influence of the Islamic empire in the 12th century that brought on the Renaissance, and
the trade with Asia forced the European powers to sail the seas and eventually migrate to the Americas.

Then please establish why it will more like the western experience and less like the eastern experience. I see your point, but it is nothing more than faniful hyperbole now. The preious historical refrences you make were also predicated on some modicum of economic activity that was eventually increased by the availability of valuable raw commodities that could be traded with larger markets. At this point, and in the forseeable future, mars offers no economic commodities that earth would need or want (they may have some, but there are other places where the same material can be secured for less investment). Australia could have been another America save for the fact that it lacked economic opportunity based on raw commodities- much like Mars.

Adrian · 2002-07-02 14:35:20

Why on "Mars" would Mars ever need to develop faster than Earth? Our historical experience has been technological advancements and improvments that result in a better life for the people that are currently alive- there are a lot of people- however, that just isn't the case on Mars. There is no one there now, and there will probably be very few people in the future- what need is there to massively develop mars then? There would be a need on Earth due solely to the population size and scope- but Mars, come on.

Why would Mars ever need to develop faster than Earth? Why, to get to the same standard of living as Earth! They're starting out from a low baseline compared to the quality of life enjoyed by many people in developed countries. I don't think it will develop beyond Earth for quite a while though, and I'm not sure whether there would be any reason to believe so unless Mars has some sort of different (perhaps superior) socio-economic status than Earth (but that's a completely different issue). But there's no reason why Mars can't use Earth technologies to help themselves along.

clark · 2002-07-02 14:45:51

Why would Mars ever need to develop faster than Earth? Why, to get to the same standard of living as Earth! They're starting out from a low baseline compared to the quality of life enjoyed by many people in developed countries.

And what do you base this rather dubious assertion on?

The people who go to Mars will enjoy a standard of living EXCEEDING almost everyone else here on Earth. They will have access to computers, communication arrays, highly advanced medical facilities, education, etc. They will have access to food, entertainment (anything that can be broadcast). They will have temp controled environments free of foreign germs. They don't need to worry about water quality, air quality- it all is created cleanly. There is no worry about pollution- they can dump it outside and it cannot affect them directly.

There would by neccessity be such a high level of automation as to only leave the most rewarding and complex tasks to humans- dull jobs, hardly a worry.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-04 00:13:07

"Australia could have been another America save for the fact that it lacked economic opportunity based on raw commodities ... ", notes Clark. Sounds like such a dismal failure on Australia's part, doesn't it?!

Perhaps surprisingly, Australia is not as bereft of resources as a cursory reading of Clark's post might lead you to believe. In fact Australia:-

1. Is the world's third largest iron-ore producer.
2. Provides 30% of the world's output of bauxite and 1/5 of
the world's alumina supply.
3. Has for many years been one of the world's largest
producers of lead and zinc
4. Has enormous deposits of both black and brown coal -
estimated black coal deposits of 600 billion tons.
5. Has large reserves of uranium. But the 'greenies' have
successfully stifled production for ideological reasons.
6. Though its oil and natural gas production is currently
declining, has potentially very large oil and gas deposits
which have yet to be developed.
7. Exports wheat, wool (around half the world's supply), sugar,
lamb, beef and veal, and some of the world's best wine

Australia may not be the economic equal of America, but she hasn't done badly when you consider that her population is currently 19 million .... about where America's was in 1845.

In other respects, Australians wouldn't want to live in "another America". Her infant mortality rate (per thousand live births) is 5.3 while America's is 7.1 . And the average Australian can expect to live nearly two years longer than the average American (78.9 years versus 77.1)
Australia has far less violent crime, a warmer climate, the Great Barrier Reef, and seemingly endless and often deserted surf beaches. Many Australians count these as valuable "commodities"!
I am Australian and I live in Australia. My job has meant talking at some length with literally tens of thousands of my fellow Australians. And, you know, I've honestly never met even one who wanted to go and live in America!
Not that I've got anything against the good ol' U.S. of A.! Quite the reverse .... I'm an admirer of American get-up-and-go and I'd kill for an American space budget here!!
But I know Clark is critical of "oversimplified models" and I felt duty-bound to help him avoid falling into the trap of using them himself.

clark · 2002-07-05 10:13:46

G'day Shaun, you get a point.

"Australia could have been another America save for the fact that it lacked economic opportunity based on raw commodities ... ", notes Clark. Sounds like such a dismal failure on Australia's part, doesn't it?!

Let me clarify my statement by trying to get to the POINT I was making. Yes, Australia has raw resources, which as Shaun points out, places it as a global supplier of the first order in some areas. However, as Shaun notes, the economic development is about where the USA was in 1845. Australia has HISTORICALLY been under-developed due to its RELATIVE lack of resources and it's geographic location.

I was comparing the historical development of australia to the future development of Mars. Mars, much like Australia does have raw commodities- however, these are meaningless to Earth since a greater abundance is available in asteroids without the gravity well penalty. America was developed to provide resource to European markets- space will be developed to serve Industrilized Earth- Mars will not be able to provide the resources that Earth will want at an economical price- as such, it will receive less investment and funding for development. In stead, more capital, and more investment will be funneled towards zero g mining and space based resource aquistion.

I am Australian and I live in Australia. My job has meant talking at some length with literally tens of thousands of my fellow Australians. And, you know, I've honestly never met even one who wanted to go and live in America!

Most americans don't want to live anywhere else either, a sad fact (in my opinion), most americans don't even want to VISIT anywhere else.

Palomar · 2002-07-05 11:53:51

most americans don't even want to VISIT anywhere else.

*I'm planning on visiting Voltaire's chateau de Ferney [Ferney, France] in a couple of years. That is, if the terrorist situation isn't worse. I plan to fly to Geneva, Switzerland [the Ferney chateau is just a few miles over the French-Swiss border], and I also plan to visit Voltaire's Swiss chateau [Les Delices] in Geneva.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-05 12:01:18

5% of Americans have passports.

that means 95% of American do not have the documentation neccessary to leave the country.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 18:22:39

Good!

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-21 19:16:50

Oh, well, you don't need a passport to go to Canada or Mexico. So I'm not sure that's a valid point.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 19:49:52

Unfortunately, the only Americans who seem to leave Stateside are the ones dropping bombs on innocent wedding parties

clark · 2002-09-23 07:23:23

Yeah, i know what you mean. And think of all the horrible things that those damn Peace Corps bringing clean water to impoverished people... :0

Americans are just soooooo uncaring.

AltToWar · 2002-09-28 23:06:09

I think the issue here is not economics as much as it is cultural.

Runnerbrax · 2003-08-08 09:08:27

hey, your talking aboutmy Marine brothers, you better watch what your saying. If i do remember correctly we liberated the Afghanis' from a tyrant and are in the hunt of another one right now...

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-08-11 20:54:12

In my view, any attempt to predict the future on an issue like this is a futile endevour. The idea of a "succession of empires" breaks down to mean simply that one empire died out and after a while another one arose, etc. That's not a pattern, any more than throwing random dice and then finding that your dice doesn't always give the same number is a pattern. In economics people like to play wizard too. So you'll see stuff about 50 year "Kondratieff cycles" in which global growth rises and falls. They just pick the model to fit the data. When the data no longer fits they just pick another model. Etc. It's all fraud, ultimately.

On a side note, our "liberation" of the Afghan people has left more poverty, chaos and destruction than beforehand. The "government" of Afghanistan controls little more than the capital city of the country. The rest is ruled by warlords, drug trafficers and other nice guys.

In Iraq it is difficult to predict what the situation will ultimately turn out like. There are many factors to consider. However I think we can be sure that if US hegemony is continued, then the wealth of the country will flow one way or another to the US and its British client. The Iraqis are already beginning a gurriella war against the invaders, with unknown consequences in the long run.

Finally we might note that the recent invasions and atrocities by the US probably to some extent derive from the fact that US hegemony over the rest of the world had slowly been decreasing formely. In part, I think this is a desperate attempt to reverse the trend.

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-11 21:18:13

This should've went in the "Apropos of Nothing" thread, it would've been funnier.

Just kidding.

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-12 09:39:24

On a side note, our "liberation" of the Afghan people has left more poverty, chaos and destruction than beforehand. The "government" of Afghanistan controls little more than the capital city of the country. The rest is ruled by warlords, drug trafficers and other nice guys.

That is what happens when the establishment of a country is destroyed. Unfortantly, americans are not trying very hard to replace that establishment with anything that might someday challege them. After all, many americans would love france to suck up to us for giving them so much assistance after WWII. The problem with the marshall plan was that we expect the population of that country to be loyal to our forgien policy aims. Unfortantly, a weak establishment is rather prone to being overthrown. Do we want puppets or do we want to consort with mighty nations that could conceivable challege us? Personally I would rather see more nations like france, strong and on their feet.

*we* is americans as a whole.

clark · 2003-08-12 10:11:44

Hmmm....

Would you rather be the Bully in a playground full of weaklings, or One Bully among a playground full of Bullies?

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-12 12:34:57

I'd like to be on a playground without bullies.

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-12 13:46:07

I'd like to be on a playground without bullies.

So would I. But man are not perfect angels.

Would you rather be the Bully in a playground full of weaklings, or One Bully among a playground full of Bullies?

Amen.

Gennaro · 2003-08-13 16:42:35

Why can't each bully have his own playground?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-02 11:04:10

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#2 2002-07-02 11:15:59

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#3 2002-07-02 12:13:46

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#4 2002-07-02 12:35:45

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#5 2002-07-02 13:51:59

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#6 2002-07-02 14:22:15

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#7 2002-07-02 14:35:20

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#8 2002-07-02 14:45:51

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#9 2002-07-04 00:13:07

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#10 2002-07-05 10:13:46

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#11 2002-07-05 11:53:51

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#12 2002-07-05 12:01:18

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#13 2002-09-21 18:22:39

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#14 2002-09-21 19:16:50

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#15 2002-09-21 19:49:52

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#16 2002-09-23 07:23:23

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#17 2002-09-28 23:06:09

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#18 2003-08-08 09:08:27

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#19 2003-08-11 20:54:12

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#20 2003-08-11 21:18:13

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#21 2003-08-12 09:39:24

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#22 2003-08-12 10:11:44

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#23 2003-08-12 12:34:57

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#24 2003-08-12 13:46:07

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

#25 2003-08-13 16:42:35

Re: The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S.

Board footer