5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

TioRay · 2002-07-11 18:46:54

Who owns Mars? Who should govern it? This topic has been included as a special evening session for the 5th International Convention in Boulder. INTERNATIONAL being the key word. Unfortunately the Mars Society has decided to fill time (or waste our time) by providing a soapbox for Alex Lightman to dribble his right wing patriarchal garbage about how Mars should be run by the United States.

If the American Mars Society really think he has something to say then please save him for your local meetings and keep this International convention for the serious people. No other country's will be showcasing there crackpots so why should you.

Anyway, I'm sure Mr Lightman will find a more understanding Audience in L.A where it O.K to beat black people...nah...Boulder sounds just about right.

Adrian · 2002-07-11 19:02:18

Topic moved from New Mars Articles to Martian Politics forum. Reason: originally not posted in relevant forum.

TioRay · 2002-07-12 00:56:15

Thankyou Adrian,

Thankyou for the informative report on why this post was moved....I'm sure it carries a great message to all that read it....Perhaps even greater than your silence on its subject matter...After all the privilege you have been granted when carrying the title of SUPER is worth it.

I wish I had your address so I could send you a thankyou pillow slip with holes cut out for your eyes....please extend my best wishes to the rest of the Klan.

Byron · 2002-07-12 06:45:11

TioRay...I really wish you wouldn't disparage Adrian (or anyone else on this board, for that matter) in this way...I, for one, think his title of "Super Administrator" is well-deserving, as he has done a "super" job of making the New Mars Forum into what it is today...

After all, Adrian is the founder and webmaster of this board...his privilage has been earned, NOT "granted" as you seem to think...

Byron

Byron · 2002-07-12 06:55:51

Who owns Mars? Who should govern it? This topic has been included as a special evening session for the 5th International Convention in Boulder. INTERNATIONAL being the key word. Unfortunately the Mars Society has decided to fill time (or waste our time) by providing a soapbox for Alex Lightman to dribble his right wing patriarchal garbage about how Mars should be run by the United States.

Have you taken a moment to stop and think that inviting this Mr. Lightman to discuss his proposal at the Convention will most likely illustrate to the rest of us of exactly why the US (or any other nation) SHOULDN'T be in charge of Mars?? The Mars Society has made it *quite* clear that it supports the position of independent exploration of Mars...but what is the purpose of having a Convention if you don't have so-called "opposing viewpoints?" I say let the man speak, if you censor his views, you might as forget about having the Mars Society Convention in the first place..it is after all, a time and place where people can exchange IDEAS...both good and bad...

Mark S · 2002-07-12 07:56:36

No other country's will be showcasing there crackpots so why should you.
Anyway, I'm sure Mr Lightman will find a more understanding Audience in L.A where it O.K to beat black people...nah...Boulder sounds just about right.

I think that personal attacks and race-baiting should be left out of this forum. Mr. Lightman has formed his opinion based on his view of world affairs, and he has made a logical argument based on this view. You should feel free to dsagree with him, but alleging that Lightman (or Adrian, for that matter) is a racist is just plain wrong.

Adrian · 2002-07-12 13:42:37

TioRay: What on Earth are you talking about? I moved the topic because it was plainly in the wrong forum: it had nothing to do with any of the New Mars articles. And the subject doesn't have anything to do with racism. As the Board Rules clearly state on registration, this is not a place for ad hominem attacks or flames.

Cobra Commander · 2002-07-25 09:15:36

Even though I am one of those arrogant Americans that the rest of the world has grown to despise, I have reservations about America governing Mars. However, let's look at the options.
United Nations control: Since the UN has botched everything it has ever gotten its multinational hands into and has a web of bureacracy that dwarfs even the mighty US government behemoth, UN control is the worst possible outcome.
Second, we have independent Mars as Zubrin has advocated. Good, but how? No one is going to fund a colonization effort without expecting some return, meaning they will insist on a fair amount of control. For the short term, Mars for the Martians is not practical.
Finally, since America will almost certainly play a major in any Martian missions, and that the other two options are unworkable I, for one am forced to conclude that (in my best Senator Palpatine impression.) I'm afraid we're going to have to accept American control for the time being.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-26 02:13:09

Given that nothing is ever perfect, and given that control of Mars by the U.S. is not necessarily the worst possible outcome by any means, I'd be willing to accept that scenario if only they would GET ON WITH IT!
As Cobra said, America will most likely play a major role in Mars exploration/colonisation. But I still think it's possible that America could leave it too long. If she continues to treat Mars with ambivalence, and talk up a return to the Moon (which I've noticed seems to be the trend just lately), then Mars slips further and further into the future. American sources commonly talk about humans-to-Mars in 20 or 30 years ... and they say it as though they've got all the time there is.
What if they haven't? 30 years can be a long time in a country's history and a great many things can happen. Opportunities don't often sit in front of you and wait indefinitely while you hum and hah over whether to grasp them or not!
Russia has economic problems, to be sure, but she has a large pool of talented and educated people, huge experience in space, and she still has enormous natural resources. Who knows where she'll be, technologically and economically, in a quarter century. On Mars, perhaps? ... Thumbing her nose at the U.S.?
The European Union is no slouch when it comes to science and technology, either. While America pumps more and more of her economic life-blood into a bigger and bigger military machine, maybe Europe will steal a march on her and show the New World that the Old World still has what it takes! How would a Mars under European control suit everybody? What if Russia JOINS the E.U.?! What a space power that might create!
A less likely but more unpalatable scenario might involve a Mars controlled by Beijing. Difficult to imagine, I grant you, but not completely out of the question if the Chinese economy ever approaches its potential and its totalitarian regime remains in power. One of the advantages of a dictatorship is that it doesn't suffer from the political near-sightedness induced by election hurdles every 3 or 4 years! If a new "Great Leader" sets his sights on Mars for whatever reason, what's to stop him?
Alex Lightman has the right to stand up and speak his mind at the Boulder conference. Anyone who would deny him that right, would also undermine the basis of liberal democracy.(We've been through all that stuff with Adolf Hitler! Let's not rehash it here! ). What concerns me is that Mr Lightman seems so certain that American control will necessarily be an option.
Unless America gets up off its ... laurels(! )... and revises that 30 year time-table downwards a little bit, her options in space may not be as broad as she fondly imagines!
???

Bill White · 2002-07-26 08:32:51

Given that nothing is ever perfect, and given that control of Mars by the U.S. is not necessarily the worst possible outcome by any means, I'd be willing to accept that scenario if only they would GET ON WITH IT!

Danger . . . Will Robinson . . . Danger . . . I detect a [RANT]

Several times I have asked for an explantion as to why "doing Mars" is in the economic or geo-political interests of my country, the US of A. Humanity benefits from humans to Mars. Obviously I believe that or why else would I be exchanging e-mails with all of you. . .

But how does GW Bush benefit, or the beltway bandits benefit, or the Pentagon or either the Democrats or Republicans benefit if the US does Mars Direct? Is altruism - or the "spirit of science" - or the "best interests of all mankind" - the best reward space advocates can offer the power brokers in DC?

Those things and $2.45 will buy a small cup of coffee inside the Beltway.

And why should the US taxpayers pay $50 - $100 billion so a bunch of anarchists can try out their vision of Utopia?

The USA will indeed "GET ON WITH IT" when we can answer these questions. . .

And answering those questions is what space advocacy should be all about.

[/END RANT]

Whew!

Palomar · 2002-07-26 09:28:50

Given that nothing is ever perfect, and given that control of Mars by the U.S. is not necessarily the worst possible outcome by any means, I'd be willing to accept that scenario if only they would GET ON WITH IT!

*Shaun, I would agree wholeheartedly with your post if 9/11 had never happened. I can't foresee U.S. taxpayers being willing, at this point in time -- what with the gov't having just yesterday passed an anti-terror ["War on Terror" effort] bill of 29.something BILLION dollars, the threats to attack Iraq, the money being sunk into irradiating mail to politicians and also providing healthcare for postal employees complaining of side effects of irradiation...on and on -- to part with loads of their tax dollars to fund Mars Direct. Frankly, I don't think the climate in the U.S. as I currently see it and hear [and yes, I could be wrong] is conducible at all to a U.S. manned Mars mission.

From the U.S. standpoint, The Million-Year Picnic may be rain delayed a while yet.

--Cindy

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-26 14:35:47

I'm afraid we just might pass up the opportunity. I'd love for Mars to be an outgrowth of America the way America is an outgrowth of England.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-27 00:54:58

Bill, what you posted didn't look like a "rant" to me. It seemed like a rational (though possibly exasperated) plea for reasons which might induce America to go to Mars.
Cindy's viewpoint seemed a little more pessimistic than some of her other, more upbeat, posts. I suppose we all get a little bit that way from time to time.
All I can say is that huge amounts of money are spent on research at universities all over America and elsewhere. It's quite common for that research to appear to have no obvious cash dividend. But still it gets funded.
I think this is because of serendipity! Even the most blinkered and unenlightened politician can see that pure research very often leads to unexpected advantages. I suppose the invention of the laser is a case in point. When it was first created in the 1950s, it was a bit of a white elephant. Nobody really knew what to do with it and it was described later as a solution looking for a problem! Today of course, we can't imagine being without it and its catalogue of uses just keeps expanding.
I think the advantages of a human space program are probably fairly obscure at present, it's true. But I don't think that will be a show-stopper as far as "doing Mars" is concerned.
What will bring about the nudge America needs to stop talking and start doing is difficult to foresee. Maybe it will be political one-upmanship again as it was in the 60s, or an even more urgent military reason. Or maybe it'll be just plain old curiosity and a ground-swell of public opinion. The urge to know what's over the hill, or round the next bend in the river, is a powerful human emotion.
If we have to show Washington a business prospectus outlining future dollar returns on its Mars investment before
the go-ahead can be given, I think we've got problems!
I guess we're all hoping it won't come to that.

clark · 2002-07-29 09:52:29

Since we're off topic anyway...

Maybe we'll go to Mars when we've finished most of the worthwhile ROBOTIC exploration first.
Maybe we'll go to Mars when we've finished most of the missing technologies that are neccessary to make long duration human flight in space safe and practical. ca we do them on they way, sure, can we do it now in LEO- yes. So why not do it in LEO first, then go with a finsihed product to Mars...?
Maybe we'll go to Mars when there is more than a scientific reason, i.e. an economic one.

PS- Bill, I hear you.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-07-31 16:26:14

Who owns Mars? Who should govern it? This topic has been included as a special evening session for the 5th International Convention in Boulder. INTERNATIONAL being the key word.

My "international" proposal for governing Mars is posted on the web at http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743/index.htm
Please review it and let me know what you think.

Scott

Mark S · 2002-08-01 08:15:18

I think that your proposal is a good one under the existing treaties. The only area where I would quibble is the "no weapons" clause. I think that "weapon" is ill-defined, as any heavy or sharp object can be used as a weapon. Furthermore, it is inevitable that there will be crime on Mars, and some weapons should be available to the police and citizens so they can defend their colonies.

Of course, your proposal was designed to work under the existing treaties. However, the Moon Treaty was never ratified by a majority of UN members (or any space-faring nations), and I have stressed before that I'd like to see the Outer Space Treaty amended. But these political issues must be solved by the UN and by the Mars-faring nations before colonization begins.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-08-04 14:39:48

I think that your proposal is a good one under the existing treaties. The only area where I would quibble is the "no weapons" clause.

Mark:

The "no weapons" provision was heavily debated by the members of the Civilization and Culture Group. I included that provision because it is already in current space treaties and because I wanted to maximize the possiblilty that the U.N. General Assembly would endorse the Constitution of the Provisional Government of Mars. After the establishment of only two settlements, the Constitution can be amended by the martian parliament. The martian parliament can make whatever weapons laws that it believes appropriate, and, in my opinion, that kind of local control is best.

But these political issues must be solved by the UN and by the Mars-faring nations before colonization begins.

I strongly agree that these "political issues" must be resolved BEFORE colonization begins.

Scott

Palomar · 2002-08-10 08:35:23

*Considering we've just heard on the news that Charlston Heston may have Alzheimer's disease, I was reminded of his "from my cold, dead hand!" exclamation at a National Rifle Association meeting some time in the past...while upholding a rifle or shotgun [couldn't tell which].

Considering how gun-saturated U.S. society is, I'd be very interested to see how some U.S. citizens colonizing Mars would react if suddenly deprived of the "right to bear arms." Yeah, that could get pretty danged interesting.

--Cindy

Scott G. Beach · 2002-08-11 00:24:58

Considering how gun-saturated U.S. society is, I'd be very interested to see how some U.S. citizens colonizing Mars would react if suddenly deprived of the "right to bear arms." Yeah, that could get pretty danged interesting.

Cindy:

If I were a voting member of a martian settlement I would probably vote in favor of giving electric stun guns and net-projecting guns to law enforcement officers. I see absolutely no reason for deer rifles or shotguns no Mars. There are no deer or pheasants on Mars.

Scott

RobS · 2002-08-13 19:05:42

I suspect Americans will have to get used to a lot of things on Mars that are different from the USA. No guns is quite a logical decision; bullets could cause depressurization. The close spaces of colonies and the gossipy village-like atmosphere would be something our grandparents were used to, but most suburbanites would find alien. Inevitably there would be a more "socialistic" culture because of the greater needs to work together to provide basic necessities such as air. Any Martian colony could not afford to have unemployment or welfare, either, which will change the social structures in ways we can't imagine.

-- RobS

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-15 06:31:34

Cindy,

Considering how gun-saturated U.S. society is, I'd be very interested to see how some U.S. citizens colonizing Mars would react if suddenly deprived of the "right to bear arms."

Yeah, it would be pretty interesting to see someone sitting around with their mini-rail guns, under the guise that they need to ?protect themselves and their property.?

Forgetting that they're inside of a bubble, relying on each and every member of their society. Missing that by natural right, what is theirs is everyones; only this right is more apparent in an environment where not following it means certain death.

I think that if people brought projectile weapons to Mars, they should be automatically rejected from the welfare system. They would have very little or no access to public air, food and water supplies. Not to mention the countless industries that will exist. Now, this doesn't necessarily prevent them from existing, but it would make it a lot tougher. All it takes is a dust storm or miscalculation, and you're screwed. Automany is desirable, but becomes difficult on a small scale, especially in an enviroment like Mars.

...this is the kind of thing clark was talking about when he was talking about ?pulling the plug.? If you can't be reasonable, why should we have to deal with you? (By the way, I don't advocate killing people, that's why I said ?little or no.?)

Guns probably won't be banned, though. Considering that some guns do serve a useful purpose, even in space. For instance, it would be a lot easier to cover a impact crater if you had a gun to shoot cables across. It could take hours to tow a wire down inside the crater and up to the other side. (Or around, which normally wouldn't be feasible because it could get hung on things.)

But owning mini-rail guns or similar technology is silly, the only thing they're useful for is killing people (or amusing yourself with shooting things). Civilized colonies would require disarmament to enter.

RobS,

I suspect Americans will have to get used to a lot of things on Mars that are different from the USA.

A lot of humans, you mean?

Mars is way different from anything we've ever experienced. It's going to be amazing adapting to it. It (and space as a whole) will undoubtedly change how we think about economy.

Cobra Commander · 2002-08-15 11:10:16

Any weapon prohibiton isn't likely to last long. If you have a colony, you'll eventually have crime. Criminals like weapons, they make their work easier. If there are no guns I'm sure that a tube and a cylinder of compressed gas could be rounded up, given the fact of living in a pressurized dome. Something "gun-like" is inevitable, even if it's not a firearm. Better to be prepared for the presence of weapons than to foolishly deny that they'll be present.
Also, as yet non-existent "mini-rail guns" aside, bullets won't likely pose a serious risk of depressurization. Certainly high powered rifles won't be needed on Mars, but handguns are an invaluable means of self defense and most handgun ammunition (particularly hollow point bullets, a good choice for anti-personnell use) is simply not that powerful. If a 9mm hollow point can penetrate the pressure dome, it is not fit for human habitation.

Just something to consider...

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-15 11:52:42

Where does crime normally come from? People need something, and they become criminals to do get it.

On Mars you won't have this. You couldn't have this. You simply cannot have ?needy? people on Mars, generally speaking. Needy crime won't exist. Can you imagine how bad your conditions would be if you didn't have enough food to feed everyone? You're inside a bubble, living with other people, and you don't have enough food to feed anyone. You're in big friggin trouble. Everything you need, would have to be provided. Although, undoubtedly, there would be people who colonized Mars with the bare neccessities, (Amish Martians anyone?), you're not going to have poverty or anything like that. When you have that, you're dead. It's you, and a vaccume.

So crime in the poor sense, would be abolished.

The other kind of crime would be power-hungry crime. Assume you had one air generator and it was centrally controlled by an authority. What would happen if a group took over the air generator? They would basically have complete control over the whole habitat. This is why decentralization is inherently necessary. If you have dozens of air generators, always building and sharing new ones, there would be no central authority, nor would a risk be posed to the general population.

So crime in the usurp sense, would be abolished.

The last kind of crime, the mentally ill kind, would obviously be a problem. But having guns easily acquirable only compounds this situation.

So, in review. The conditions on Mars would be much better than that of Earth. They have to be, or you die. You can't be living in a rat infested barro on Mars. Decentralization on Mars, would completely eradicate any envisioned power-mongering. Decentralization is not only the key to a peaceful society, it's also the key to an efficient, smart, society. If everything is centralized, the bigger society becomes, the more inefficient it is, as trivial work orders have to be delegated to those at the top. And of course, when you take orders from somone, you don't really have to be very smart.

Omer Joel · 2002-08-15 14:02:14

How could a nation *own* a planet? By what right could they declare that it is thiers, the whole planet? Yes, if an earth-based government will build a colony on mars, it could claim ownership over it. But the *entire* planet? This is simply imperialism. IMHO, it kinda of defeats the porpuse of the Mars Society to devide Mars between Earth nations or to have one or more nations single-handidly claim ownership over unsettled, unterraformed tracts of Martian soil for the purpose of future exploitation. Such acts could possibly lead to colonial wars on Mars: assume that the USA, for example, says that the entire Marineris (sp?) region belongs to it, What would the American colonists do if a chinese landing module will land in a claimed area, far away from any other colony? shoot it down? Take over the new colony? Remember, this is not the early 1700's in North America; these are the 2000's on Mars. We should try our best to avoid such conflicts; if Mars will just become another Earth, torn by warfare and hatered, it will do the Human race no good.

Until Mars could support itself independantly of Earth, it should be governed by an international body which should be regulated by an international treaty. Once Mars could possibly be intependant, it should be. By that time, Mars will belong to Mars.

Bringing projectile weapons and high explosives to a pressurized enviroment is not recommended. Even if the outer walls/hull of the habitat will be strong enough to prevent breaching and explosive decompression as a result of impact by a stray bullet, there will be too many machines critically needed for survival around that could be damaged in a firefight. There are enough non-lethal or non-projectile weapons available today that projectile weapons will not be absolutely nescery.

Byron · 2002-08-16 07:29:01

So, in review. The conditions on Mars would be much better than that of Earth. They have to be, or you die. You can't be living in a rat infested barro on Mars. Decentralization on Mars, would completely eradicate any envisioned power-mongering. Decentralization is not only the key to a peaceful society, it's also the key to an efficient, smart, society. If everything is centralized, the bigger society becomes, the more inefficient it is, as trivial work orders have to be delegated to those at the top. And of course, when you take orders from somone, you don't really have to be very smart.

Good point, there, Josh...the standards for mere survival on Mars will be so high that there simply will be no "room" for proverty, crime, and other "social ills" of modern society that we have here on Earth. For simple reasons of safety and practicality, redundancy will be prevalent in almost every aspect of a Martian settlement...multiple power generators, air factories, sectioned hab areas capable of functioning independently from the other sections, etc.

I also think that the "leadership," in whatever form that will take, will also have to be decentralized, so the failings of a single individual will not doom the entire community. In short, the whole base, city or whatever will need to have comprehensive, inter-related systems of people, machines and high technology that are ductile, which means flexiblility and the ability to "fail" well, i.e., if something goes wrong, the other parts of the system will be able to pick up the slack and prevent a cascading effect of total system failure.

We will have to do things right on the Mars the first time around, because Mars will never be forgiving as Earth has been for the human race.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-11 18:46:54

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#2 2002-07-11 19:02:18

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#3 2002-07-12 00:56:15

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#4 2002-07-12 06:45:11

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#5 2002-07-12 06:55:51

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#6 2002-07-12 07:56:36

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#7 2002-07-12 13:42:37

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#8 2002-07-25 09:15:36

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#9 2002-07-26 02:13:09

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#10 2002-07-26 08:32:51

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#11 2002-07-26 09:28:50

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#12 2002-07-26 14:35:47

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#13 2002-07-27 00:54:58

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#14 2002-07-29 09:52:29

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#15 2002-07-31 16:26:14

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#16 2002-08-01 08:15:18

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#17 2002-08-04 14:39:48

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#18 2002-08-10 08:35:23

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#19 2002-08-11 00:24:58

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#20 2002-08-13 19:05:42

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#21 2002-08-15 06:31:34

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#22 2002-08-15 11:10:16

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#23 2002-08-15 11:52:42

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#24 2002-08-15 14:02:14

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

#25 2002-08-16 07:29:01

Re: 5th International Convention in Boulder - Who owns Mars? Not Lightman or the USA!

Board footer