Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

Palomar · 2004-08-02 10:48:01

*Maybe we should drop the use of the word "colony" altogether, considering the ugly connotations it has especially here in the West -- including a plethora of human rights violations.

The connotation is still there and use of the word probably only inflames anti-exploration sentiment. Even if there are no humanoid/sentient lifeforms on Mars.

It's such a "loaded" word.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-02 11:00:21

*Maybe we should drop the use of the word "colony" altogether, considering the ugly connotations it has especially here in the West -- including a plethora of human rights violations.

Hmm. What else can we use?

"Settlement" is just so... blah. Like we get to Mars, look around and... "Well, I guess it'll do." <shrug>

Outpost... sounds small and rather military.

City is too specific, and besides, who wants to move to a desolate frontier to live in a city? It's like Chicago, but cold all the time.

Holding, perhaps. As in "America commits itself to establishing a significant and lasting holding on Mars." Nah. Has certain commodity connotations.

Maybe we should just claim the whole planet, send however many people it takes to make it eligable for statehood and be done with it. Mars' electoral votes go to...

clark · 2004-08-02 11:15:52

Community.

We endavour to establish a new and lasting community on Mars, to push the boundaries and frontier of humanities reach among the stars, demonstrating that through our resolve, and in collaboration with our fellow man, mankind can build a lasting peace based on partnership and cooperation.

Palomar · 2004-08-02 11:21:03

*Maybe we should drop the use of the word "colony" altogether, considering the ugly connotations it has especially here in the West -- including a plethora of human rights violations.
Hmm. What else can we use?
"Settlement" is just so... blah. Like we get to Mars, look around and... "Well, I guess it'll do." <shrug>
Outpost... sounds small and rather military.
City is too specific, and besides, who wants to move to a desolate frontier to live in a city? It's like Chicago, but cold all the time.
Holding, perhaps. As in "America commits itself to establishing a significant and lasting holding on Mars." Nah. Has certain commodity connotations.
Maybe we should just claim the whole planet, send however many people it takes to make it eligable for statehood and be done with it. Mars' electoral votes go to...

*How about we use a foreign-language word which equates to settlement/colony?

It's an alternative. It's worked for other situations (though a specific example doesn't spring to my mind right now).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-02 11:43:03

Community.
We endavour to establish a new and lasting community on Mars, to push the boundaries and frontier of humanities reach among the stars, demonstrating that through our resolve, and in collaboration with our fellow man, mankind can build a lasting peace based on partnership and cooperation.

Passable, but it somehow strikes me as wishy-washy. Like we're really trying not to say "colony."

*How about we use a foreign-language word which equates to settlement/colony?

Kinda like Lebensraum?

No, I suppose not.

clark · 2004-08-02 11:48:18

Passable? I'll take it. :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-02 12:03:49

Passable? I'll take it.

It's growing on me as well for limited uses. Somehow rounding people up and sending... inviting them to a community doesn't sound so bad. It even beats the Orwellian "joy camp."

Okay, time for another piece of that "groovy cake" I think.

clark · 2004-08-02 12:09:46

Joy camp? Bleh.

Call it the value orientation resort and spa.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-02 12:13:08

Call it the value orientation resort and spa.

It even sounds like there's a brunch. Evil, but kinda warm and fuzzy.

When did we get to Euthenia? :laugh:

clark · 2004-08-02 12:21:21

Of course the spa is little more than a vat of boiling water used to force compliance... er, I mean "enlighten the individual to find understaning and acceptance of the life affirming wisdom." :;):

Aetius · 2004-08-02 12:46:29

Community is nice, but I rather like the term 'Dominion' better.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-02 12:50:02

Community is nice, but I rather like the term 'Dominion' better.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

Aetius · 2004-08-02 12:53:05

Most of the people who get really offended by the word 'colony', in my experience, are against space settlement to begin with. Once we humans get the ball rolling on Mars, those people will find themselves marginalized in the discussion of how best to colonize the planet.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-02 12:57:21

If nothing else, the colonization of Mars will partially redefine "colony," giving it a whole new set of connotations. As that exchange between Clark and myself illustrates, maybe changing labels to more pleasant-sounding wording may not be worth all the... trouble.

clark · 2004-08-02 13:06:15

Signifiers and the Signified! :laugh:

One woman's luggage is another man's baggage.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-02 16:44:05

Hmmmm. Good points, Republic. Beach has a good point, though. Larger cities generate more graft and corruption than smaller communities, though smaller communities still have it. A smaller community would have a better quality of life overall. IMHO.

I contest that point!

We can choose to build big beautiful city or we can build small ugly city to live in. We can choose to have Classical sciences, arts, music, etc. that inspire the mind, but they will generally be in the bigger cities, because of the population density.

But, to keep the smaller towns, cities and farming communities from suffering from low density population, you would have to have a central government promoting there general interest too. Beside, these smaller towns, cities and farming communities will also feed the Big cities with food, metals and even some manufactured goods too.

Even the big city would have problems and they need these smaller communities to run levitated rail system across the entire Martian Planet. So I'm not talking about either a big city or a small city, but starting off with the idea of building a big city will give the economic power house to build everything else on Mars from that major city. We go out there with the idea we are going to develop fusion power and have three or four electric generator, a plasma steel furnace, a nuclear powered desalting plant for desalting the water in the ground and/or cycling the water through the Martian dirt to wash out the salt and then run the water through the nuclear powered desalting plant and also have subway and/or train system as a nucleus of our city

Like we should go up there like we mean business and that we intend to build an economic system on Mars that is intend to be self-sustaining of both the physical and economic system.

Larry,

smurf975 · 2004-08-04 12:19:06

I think that if you look at the nations / communities that are able to get humans on Mars in lets say 50 years, saying that American people will make up most of the population is untrue.

These are the countries / communities that I think that should be able to get something to Mars in the next 50 years:

1. USA
2. Russia
3. ESA (Europeans)
4. South Americans (Centered around Brazil)
5. Indians
6. Chinese

If you look at this list, all of these have greater populations then the US except for Russia. As most citizens of the respective nations are happy on Earth and like it, I will guess only about 3% of each nations populations actually want to move to Mars. 3% of Europeans, Indian, Chinese or Brazilians is much much more then 3% of the US population.

The original US colony will be swamped by other peoples. However English may be the Martian language.

smurf975 · 2004-08-04 12:27:04

I believe that the amount of graft or corruption found in a municipal government of any size is more directly attributable to the civic culture of the society at large, than to population alone.
Mars will someday be home to both large cities and small towns, in my opinion. The big cities will enjoy more prosperity than most smaller settlements, due to much greater economic activity. They will also have greater cultural possibilities, due to the larger concentration of diverse groups of people.
More crime? Sure. More corruption? Sure, but probably no more per capita than Euthenia. But also more jobs, more possibilities for real-life (NOT just virtual) cultural enrichment, and more hope to climb up the socioeconomic ladder for the ordinary Joe and Jane of Mars.

You have a point but also think that in this modern society distances matter less.

If you set up settlements with wireless communications and use for instance microwave to supply energy. You basically have a remote community that is fully in contact with the rest of Mars.

Also you will need to invest in public transport such as trains. What is stopping trains on Earth from going faster then 300 miles/hour is air resistance. As Mars has almost no air your can make trains go as fast as planes and it will be cheaper then air transportation on Earth. So moving people and cargo over great distances is no problem on Mars as the public transport system is very fast.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-04 12:33:43

As most citizens of the respective nations are happy on Earth and like it, I will guess only about 3% of each nations populations actually want to move to Mars. 3% of Europeans, Indian, Chinese or Brazilians is much much more then 3% of the US population.

Only it's about more than being able to launch something to Mars. Colonization requires a massive investment of capital to sustain it. Russia, South America and India don't have it at teh moment. China has a ways to go, but maybe in a few decades. The EU might be able to do it, but they have less resources to expend on it than the US and even less will to do it.

It looks like nothing for twenty or thirty years at least, then America or China with odds on the US.

This doesn't preclude nations working together, however. EU and Russia maybe. But if we get a good colonization drive going, I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the US and Britain working closely, independent of ESA. Canada and Australia can jump on board as well, giving a huge mass of people, overwhelming financial resources and no serious language barriers, unlike some other potential partnerships.

Needless to say, English would be the de facto language of space commerce, putting it high in the running for the language of humanity.

smurf975 · 2004-08-04 12:51:05

Only it's about more than being able to launch something to Mars. Colonization requires a massive investment of capital to sustain it. Russia, South America and India don't have it at teh moment. China has a ways to go, but maybe in a few decades. The EU might be able to do it, but they have less resources to expend on it than the US and even less will to do it.

Well I'm talking about a fifthy year plan. Just look at how long it took for the Russians and Americans to develop their space plans.

However the Russians and Americans did have the advantage of German scientists they took with them after WWII.

However South American & India may have less will to do so at this moment as they are still fighting starvation and basic stuff such as flooding and a reliable powergrid. Don't know how the Chinese are with this.

This doesn't preclude nations working together, however. EU and Russia maybe. But if we get a good colonization drive going, I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the US and Britain working closely, independent of ESA. Canada and Australia can jump on board as well, giving a huge mass of people, overwhelming financial resources and no serious language barriers, unlike some other potential partnerships.

Look at this what I got from the ESA site:

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, together with Canada which is a cooperating country.

This is list of ESA members. So I think you are to late with Canada and the UK. Australia could be a swinger between the ESA and NASA.

Also English is not a problem for most educated people in Europe. The French are just stuborn. But I think almost all European rocket scienctist can read/write and talk good english. Well I think they have no choice as most high tech documentation is in English.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-04 13:03:07

This is list of ESA members. So I think you are to late with Canada and the UK. Australia could be a swinger between the ESA and NASA.

NASA and ESA are different beasts. NASA a government agency of a single sovereign nation, ESA is a much looser partnership. Canada works with NASA as well, the shuttle arm for example. The UK is in many ways (besides geography) floating between the US and Europe. The US/UK alliance is about the closest thing to friendship that nation states can have. If the US announced a Mars colonization program and offered the invitation the only thing that might hold Canada or the UK back is money. ESA is just not that big.

So come on, the sun never sets! Let's get the old Empire back together and colonize! Invest in a piece of that Commonwealth.

smurf975 · 2004-08-04 13:12:22

So come on, the sun never sets! Let's get the old Empire back together and colonize! Invest in a piece of that Commonwealth.

Question does the President, congress or who ever decides, want to work together closely with Canada, UK, and Australia on a space program?

If so what’s stopping them?

As together they have: 293,027,571 + 32,507,874 + 60,270,708 + 19,913,144 = 405,719,297
406 million people and they are they richest, most developed and also very important the USA, Canada and Australia have huge natural resources.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-04 13:18:54

As together they have: 293,027,571 + 32,507,874 + 60,270,708 + 19,913,144 = 405,719,297
406 million people and they are they richest, most developed and also very important the USA, Canada and Australia have huge natural resources.

That's what I'm saying, working together these four could mount a kickass colonization program. Unified language and basic values without all that "unilateralist" baggage in the rest of the world on top of it.

Unfortunately, I'm aware of no such plan at any level, besides what's been suggested right here today. Perhaps a concerted campaign of letters, phone calls and Congressional visits is in order. With similar efforts in the other nations as well. :hm:

Grypd · 2004-08-04 15:32:03

In the case for the united Kingdom it is in Esa but seems to be waiting for something significant to happen and is quite happy to use either Nasa or Esa to launch the few probes it does do ie Beagle 2 Esa probe, Beagle 3 possible Nasa.

It is strange as the original Ariane rocket was developed using technology from the UKs independent rocket programe, (it actually launched one satelite called Prospero)

It seems to be a case again of Britain being unsure of its place wether to stay in europe and the French dominated Esa or to get closer to the US and Nasa.

The United Kingdom is significantly involved in one programme that of space guard the hunt for dangerous Asteroids/Comets and basic research using satelites.

EarthWolf · 2004-08-04 16:20:55

Hello,

So far, it seems like all the world's space programs are waiting for a strong goal to materialize. All these different space powers are simply squatting in LEO, doing studies, writing papers and making proposals while the political will simply isn't there to do anything serious in space. Oh, there are the unmanned missions to Saturn, Mercury, Mars and near-Earth space. It seems to me that is either make-work or it's some preliminary work to a more extensive exploration program.

Cordially,

EarthWolf

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-08-02 10:48:01

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#27 2004-08-02 11:00:21

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#28 2004-08-02 11:15:52

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#29 2004-08-02 11:21:03

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#30 2004-08-02 11:43:03

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#31 2004-08-02 11:48:18

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#32 2004-08-02 12:03:49

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#33 2004-08-02 12:09:46

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#34 2004-08-02 12:13:08

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#35 2004-08-02 12:21:21

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#36 2004-08-02 12:46:29

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#37 2004-08-02 12:50:02

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#38 2004-08-02 12:53:05

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#39 2004-08-02 12:57:21

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#40 2004-08-02 13:06:15

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#41 2004-08-02 16:44:05

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#42 2004-08-04 12:19:06

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#43 2004-08-04 12:27:04

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#44 2004-08-04 12:33:43

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#45 2004-08-04 12:51:05

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#46 2004-08-04 13:03:07

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#47 2004-08-04 13:12:22

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#48 2004-08-04 13:18:54

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#49 2004-08-04 15:32:03

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#50 2004-08-04 16:20:55

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

Board footer