Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

EarthWolf · 2004-08-01 06:22:44

Hello,

I recently read a paper by Dr. Zubrin that postulated that by opening up a Martian frontier, can society on Earth be saved from a crystallization that could eventually kill democractic society as we know it. But would it? From what I remember of history, colonies were settled by two different methods. One was by direct government control and support, like the use of colonial Australia as a penal colony by Britain and the settlement of Quebec by pre-Revolution France.

The other was by private enterprise or private parties, such as the New Netherlands colony by the Dutch and the Puritan colonies in Massachusetts. But what makes these colonies different from any prospective Martian colony is the degree of isolation from the parent government and that these Earth colonies could subsist without substantial and necessary support from home. A third point of contention is that national governments and multinational corporations would be sending colonists to Mars. Wouldn't that make sure that things in the Martian colonies would go just as the big interests on Earth would have it?

All have to admit, though, his point on the value of labor and that governments would have to contend with the threat of demographic drain to Mars could be a boon for the folks left on the homeworld.

Cordially,

EarthWolf

Morris · 2004-08-01 08:47:33

I recently read a paper by Dr. Zubrin that postulated that by opening up a Martian frontier, can society on Earth be saved from a crystallization that could eventually kill democractic society as we know it.

Do you have a book or website reference to that paper?

All have to admit, though, his point on the value of labor and that governments would have to contend with the threat of demographic drain to Mars could be a boon for the folks left on the homeworld.

With the big exception of a "brain drain", why would a "demographic drain" to Mars be a threat to anyone on Earth?

Gennaro · 2004-08-01 14:05:30

It's a good question and one you can't escape after reading the works of Zubrin.

My answer would be that the historical dynamism of human societies could possibly be upheld if not just one nation or type of society would join the colonization game, but several and with widely dissimilar approaches to their relationship to Earth as well as political organization.

If it's done by the New World Order alone, maybe already beginning to shape the solar system in its image by opening up the real estate market, I'm afraid that precisely that crystallization will ensue.

Besides, there's nothing that says democracy is bound to be the highest form of government or stage of civilization. What I'm afraid of is rather the crystallization of our society as it stands, not political changes that would "kill democractic society as we know it".

What are the stakes? If you have open force, the spirit remains free, even to change and overthrow the system. In a democracy, without open means of power, stability relies instead on control of mind and spirit. It moves inside the flesh of people. That's the dead end of democracy as well as its logical conclusion.

Dialectics, you know. :;):

Morris · 2004-08-01 22:59:45

My answer would be that the historical dynamism of human societies could possibly be upheld if not just one nation or type of society would join the colonization game, but several and with widely dissimilar approaches to their relationship to Earth as well as political organization

It would certainly seem more probable.

Besides, there's nothing that says democracy is bound to be the highest form of government or stage of civilization. What I'm afraid of is rather the crystallization of our society as it stands, not political changes that would "kill democractic society as we know it".

True, whether or not it remains a type of democracy/republic/open society, there will undoubtedly be considerable evolution as time goes on.

I see plenty of dynamism within our society now. I'm just not sure whether it is a type which would lead to productive development vs. possible degenerative changes, analogous to the changes which led to the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.

What leads you to the conclusion that our society may be "crystallizing"?

In a democracy, without open means of power, stability relies instead on control of mind and spirit. It moves inside the flesh of people. That's the dead end of democracy as well as its logical conclusion.

I'm not sure I understand this passage. Power may be overt or covert. Usually a mixture of both is necessary for its effective exercise. I do agree that if someone ever came up with a truly effective way of controlling mind and spirit, then a deadly stability could ensue. Some kinds of stability are good, and necessary for the effective operation of society, e.g. basic principles of justice and social interaction. Other kinds are deadly, such as the inability of traditional Chinese civilization to adapt to economic and technological change. I don't think that a deadly stability is the necessary result of an open society. In fact, such a consequence is less likely to occur.

Dialectics, you know. :;):

Hmmm, aside from a brief youthful inquiry, dispelled immediately by my first reading of Atlas Shrugged, I have never been much for either Hegel or Marx. Let's talk about dynamics, not dialectics.

EarthWolf · 2004-08-02 06:24:43

Hello,

I'll try to find the website on which I found that paper. As to the demographic threat, governments and the market would have to acknowledge that the common worker could always go to Mars, if they don't like the working/social conditions here on Earth. That was how it might have been, analogically speaking, for home countries in the 16th to 20th centuries. It is not a foregone conclusion that all or even a substantial majority of nations could afford to set up Mars colonies.

As for the crystallization of society here on Earth, I see it in the greater and greater role that governments play in the economic/social sphere. Also, I see it in the apathy that many younger people have towards the democractic process. It seems to me that people are just accepting greater invasion of their lives by government and corporate data collection and the manipulation of that data, thereby. What disturbs me as well is the invasive role that government could play in the national defense from terrorism.

The government here, IMHO, is tearing up the U.S. Constitution in order to protect it's citizens from international terrorism. Most people here are welcoming it. All this because the technology allows a government the ability to monitor the population and gauge/manipulate public image. There's really no room for peaceful and gradual social development in a closed system.

In a closed system, I mean that a society would have no place where social forces could be given free play where otherwise, it would be could become divisive and catastrophic to the system. An example is medieval Europe. In a closed society without frontiers, the primary social impetus is towards maintaining the status quo. Stability becomes the overriding focus.

Cordially,

EarthWolf

Morris · 2004-08-02 10:55:32

As to the demographic threat, governments and the market would have to acknowledge that the common worker could always go to Mars, if they don't like the working/social conditions here on Earth.

Oh, yes, I see the point now. While I suppose that might happen in the very distant future, I think it's too far away to influence any immediate considerations. Since Zubrin and others outlined it, I have been very frustrated at the popularity of the "American frontier" analogy for solar system exploration and settlement. The situations are just too different in very essential ways. On most of the American frontier, there was plenty of food and water. Building materials were "at hand" and widely distributed and a person who was frustrated, got in trouble with his fellows, etc. could always go back further and start over with a minimum need for a bankroll. The primary need for societal contact was to buy utensils, weapons, and a few tools and, in some settings, food essentials like salt. Early settlement on Mars will be totally different with lots of relative expense just to obtain and keep the means to live. And the society of one's fellows will be absolutely essential. Because of the expense of setting up the basic living conditions for a settlement, disenchanted individuals or groups will not be able to just march over a few hills or dunes and set up another settlement.

Furthermore, some relatively specialized skills will be needed for a Mars settlement to be economically productive, while in American frontier times, the vast majority of people knew how to do basic farm or hunter/trapper work and these were all that was necessary for minimal survival. Not so on Mars. Every one of the early groups will need a relatively large "grubstake" until really efficient means of extracting local natural resources are developed and efficient transport for non-local essential resources arranged. The question of lubricants alone is a big one.

Don't get me wrong, the frontier analogy still partly works, but in a more abstract sense. We do still need difficult challenges and worthwhile long-term goals. But, barring unexpected radical improvements over a wide range of technologies, we will certainly not get a rapid enough spread to influence workforce considerations on Earth to any significant extent early on. Now it may be different in a couple of hundred years, or whenever we get to "Green Mars", but that's the situation for the immediate future.

As for the crystallization of society here on Earth, I see it in the greater and greater role that governments play in the economic/social sphere.

Yes, this is a real tough one, especially in an open society, because the results can be so confusing. I do think that the ever-increasing litigation and flood of new laws on everything do point to the increasing inadequacy of long-standing informal mechanisms for dealing with conflict. To make matters worse, one group gets in power and uses government to encourage/enforce their viewpoint and then another group comes in and does the same. The ordinary citizen is "caught in the middle". While change is important for growth, a reasonable degree of stability/pedictability in basic maters is important for the relatively smooth conduct of business, and life in general. If this doesn't happen, there is a tendency for people at all economic levels to move towards more authoritarian government because of it's greater predictability and the operation of the "fantasy of influence". This tendency is amplified by external threat or poor economic conditions.

The government here, IMHO, is tearing up the U.S. Constitution in order to protect it's citizens from international terrorism. Most people here are welcoming it. All this because the technology allows a government the ability to monitor the population and gauge/manipulate public image. There's really no room for peaceful and gradual social development in a closed system.

Yes, I agree almost completely with this paragraph. What makes it so frustrating is that it flies directly in the face of historical fact. The facts are that the US has been an exception to the presence of fairly common international terror attacks because of the implementation of two fundamental beliefs and their associated practices.

The first is that in the US people who work hard and save their money can "make it". The second is the absence of systematic roundups, arrests and detentions, and disappearances of dissidents. Thus people readily want to come here for a chance at a better life and because they can express even negative opinions without substantial risk to themselves and their families. It's amazing the number of Arabs who happily live here and make great contributions (and great livings) who nevertheless disagree with us about a whole variety of things in the near and middle east. The vast majority of them would never do a thing to kill "the goose that lays the golden eggs". In fact, these two things do more to protect the American people than 1000 divisions of troops. But nothing is perfect, and because of one attack, many people want to throw away the very practices that have protected us the most throughout the years.

Don't get me wrong, terror should be fought aggressively, on multiple fronts, and persistently. We need to use a "full court press" so they can't get or keep their balance. But we need to "fight smart" and not fall into using tactics which intrinsically produce a lot of error and injustice, and worse, injustice with no chance of correction.

Now I think that these views are strongly conservative with respect to American traditions, but these days such views are portrayed as being "liberal" or even "radical". Go figure.

And you are quite right about the role of improvements in technology. But that is a "double-edged sword". Technology, of course, is intrinsically neutral.

clark · 2004-08-02 11:23:43

Morris, do you think that the environment of Mars would be more conducive to co-op style associations of speicalized individuals who each contribute uniuqe and neccessary skills to the overall group? Each individual would in essence bring their own unique skills/knowledge to the table, increasing ans securing the overall success of the group at large, yet each part would be less than overall sum...

What might make the most sense is the formation of free-association groups that enter into binding contractual agreements to work with each other for a set number of years/goals. The basis for entry is agreement around a broad and generalized rules of cooperation/ideals (we believe in this, not in this, etc.).

Morris · 2004-08-02 13:49:21

Morris, do you think that the environment of Mars would be more conducive to co-op style associations of speicalized individuals who each contribute uniuqe and neccessary skills to the overall group? Each individual would in essence bring their own unique skills/knowledge to the table, increasing ans securing the overall success of the group at large, yet each part would be less than overall sum...
What might make the most sense is the formation of free-association groups that enter into binding contractual agreements to work with each other for a set number of years/goals. The basis for entry is agreement around a broad and generalized rules of cooperation/ideals (we believe in this, not in this, etc.).

I think there is a room for a great deal of experimentation along these lines. Some specialization will be needed, but, in the beginning, there may be a need for universal redundancy in the most fundamental life support activities and specialization in addition to that. Kind of like what I understand to be the case for astronauts at present. They are all trained in a wide variety of basics, but in addition we have "mission specialists", "payload specialists", etc.

Once we find a design for settlement habs which is cheap, easy to construct, efficient, long-lasting, and safe and when there is a local economy which can support them, then we might have things like construction specialists which build settlement "stems" and then go on to the next. When situations like that arise, then goal-based contracts really come into the picture. It would be left up to settlers to expand the stems and invent new processes and products of economic value. Perhaps for a major "redo", then construction teams would come in again. Anyway, lots of fun possibilities.

In working out basic administration and justice issues, there would have to be a number of agreements between the funders (government, business, non-profit organizations, etc.) and the project crews and/or settlers including a specific process for dispute resolution. In the beginning the job plan would be so detailed, and practiced so thoroughly, that most problems will be found in simulation.

Problems external to the job, e.g. of a criminal nature, could initially be handled by either the chief administrator and/or a local judicial committee under broad guidelines (e.g. UCMJ, Articles of War, law of the sea, etc.) Cases with implications going beyond local issues could be tried by new legal procedures allowing for input from both the settlement and Earth jurisdictions which might be involved.

Anyway, lots of neat possibilities.

C M Edwards · 2004-08-02 15:22:33

Historically, the most famous people in my family tree have been mostly crooks, politicians, and engineers. In the past, my relatives have often found it convenient to have new places they could re-settle and start decent, productive lives again after making a name for themselves.

Unfortunately, modern American society is not the place to do this. There is simply too much insistence on being able to track citizens, particularly financially, and not as much on allowing opportunity. Starting over after a grave financial error in the States is becoming as difficult as starting over after a prison term. And starting over, IMHO, is the whole reason to emigrate anywhere. There has to be room for it on Mars, or you're not going to get anything other than scientists to go live there.

Mars ain't really settled if there's no real characters.

clark · 2004-08-02 15:26:38

My great grandfather shot a man and fled to this country.

Mars will not be the place to "start over". It will be a glorified prison-mall.

I think there will be chracters though- of course the flavor will be neurosis induced. :laugh:

Palomar · 2004-08-02 15:49:15

Hello,
I recently read a paper by Dr. Zubrin that postulated that by opening up a Martian frontier, can society on Earth be saved from a crystallization that could eventually kill democractic society as we know it. But would it?

*Even if we never make it off-Earth (god forbid), there'll always be a candle in the darkness.

Barring an extreme cataclysmic event (force of nature or caused by us), I should hope there's been enough documentation of democracy for it to carry on into the future...at least in one place, perhaps a few. The cultural context(s) will likely be different, but still greatly resembling democracy.

However, I do believe going off-Earth will be a boon for mankind in myriad ways. Of course there will be drawbacks as well, but chances are the benefits will outweigh the drawbacks considerably.

Okay -- off for my piece of "Groovy Cake." Peace!

--Cindy

EarthWolf · 2004-08-02 18:04:37

Hello,

It would be interesting to see what we humans do with the Solar System.

Cordially,

EarthWolf

Morris · 2004-08-03 00:52:13

And starting over, IMHO, is the whole reason to emigrate anywhere. There has to be room for it on Mars, or you're not going to get anything other than scientists to go live there.

Hmmm. There seem to be quite a few idealists who would like to go there, but you have a couple of very important points. Societies in general do need a way for people to start over. But, lacking anonymity, there needs to be a fairly reliable way of distinguishing between those who have made a mistake but can also make a long-term contribution and those who can't stay out of trouble anywhere for a significant period of time.

And, as Clark suggests, very early Mars will not be the place for experiments with people who may be dangerous either through aggression or inattention/neglect.

Morris · 2004-08-03 02:28:00

Barring an extreme cataclysmic event (force of nature or caused by us), I should hope there's been enough documentation of democracy for it to carry on into the future...at least in one place, perhaps a few. The cultural context(s) will likely be different, but still greatly resembling democracy.

In complex economies, especially information-based ones, education is so important that there will be enormous pressures to educate as many as possible. And educated people insist on becoming part of the elite. So if well over half the people are educated, then there is an enormous pressure for an open society. And open societies are usually intensely dynamic and thus develop social habits that allow rapid adjustment to many kinds of changes. a tremendous advantage over more static societies. So, at least in the economic realm, I would expect a general trend towards consumer-based, and therefore, input-oriented societies.

However, in other ways, societies may become more structured. One very interesting modern laboratory is Russia. During the Soviet era, a high level of literacy was encouraged, and, to a considerable extent achieved. However, the structure of the Soviet economy could not make the best use of all that talent and, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, educational quality has lessened. Ph.D.s are working in low-level jobs and taking in travelers as boarders just to help out. And where are they looking to for the future? A few months ago, I read that Russian parents are now having their children learn Chinese in order to have better opportunities in the future.

Now for the $24 question. What is the source of the current Chinese dynamism? Theoretically the social conditions would be considered to be very unfavorable. Maoist communism was a largely agrarian variety, not really suited for industrialization and the development of modern economies. And the communist social structure, like the Confucian one which preceded it, is notoriously resistant to change. It is a minor miracle that Deng Xiaopeng survived two Maoist purges (during which he was declared to be a non-entity) to wrestle China into being a competitive economic player.

And the speed of the transition is chilling. A few years ago, I read a book by an American journalist and China expert who retraced the route of a Buddhist monk who traveled all the way to India, made some brilliant contributions to Buddhism there, and returned. He went out on the northern Silk Road and returned on the southern, thus seeing much of central Asia on his trip. And what did he see? Large scale building going on in desert towns that previously hadn't changed much in hundreds of years. Heavy population pressure of the Han against the indigenous peoples of central Asia. Economic and cultural orientation of neighboring states, particularly Pakistan, not towards Russia or the West, but towards China.

Perhaps some of the reason can be seen in the character of his mother-in-law who, as a young mother herself, was given permission to join her husband, but was given no transportation. She walked, carrying two babies on the ends of a pole across her shoulders, 1000 miles from southeastern China to the Amur River (the Russian border) to join her husband, who was in the army there. One of the two babies became a dancer and won a competitive place in the top dance school in China where she was treated as a "country bumpkin" and disdained. But she worked very hard, and did extra practices every day, eventually becoming not only a top dancer but also a singing star until she defected to the U.S. It is interesting to note that her selection conformed to a long-standing Confucian tradition which based entry into the educated classes, and therefore the civil service, on competitive examinations rather than on the wealth or social standing of the parents.

Folks, if there is ever any economic or strategic value to Mars, we had darn sure better get there before the Chinese do or we will be "in a world of hurt".

BWhite · 2004-08-03 08:11:10

Folks, if there is ever any economic or strategic value to Mars, we had darn sure better get there before the Chinese do or we will be "in a world of hurt".

Morris, my prejudice or angle, played out on these boards over the past several years is my belief that the solar system is like a giant sterile petri dish awaiting "contamination" (if you will allow that word) of Terran life.

A seed population of humans, motivated, talented, well educated in engineering and equipped with both robust Closed Environment Life Support Systems (CELSS) and the ability to assimiliate resources harvested from "out there" into their CELSS modules would spark the greatest population explosion in all human history, if we take a view that extends across several centuries.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-03 08:30:53

And whoever gets a foothold first will disproportionately influence that expansion. Whoever colonizes Mars first sets the mold for spacefaring humanity. That alone should be enough reason not to delay.

clark · 2004-08-03 09:13:30

. But, lacking anonymity, there needs to be a fairly reliable way of distinguishing between those who have made a mistake but can also make a long-term contribution and those who can't stay out of trouble anywhere for a significant period of time.

We could tattoo them.

In complex economies, especially information-based ones, education is so important that there will be enormous pressures to educate as many as possible. And educated people insist on becoming part of the elite.

You refrence Russia as a labratory in this regard, I would posit that the Middle East is as much so. Inner cities within the US also. The wholesale education of a group of people without an outlet by which to avail themselves of their new found potential for opportunity leads to a greater number of disenfranchised.

Society has historically handled the issue of the disenfranchised by moving them towards areas where they could create or pursue the opportunity that was denied to them (for whatever reason). Basicaly moving from an area that is static to one that is more dynamic (frontier analogy)

If this isn't possible, then society must either actively work to suppress the disenfranchised in order to maintain the status quo (the statism) or fall to whatever revolution that reduces the population of disenfranchised (South Africa apartheid as an example)

In China, you can see various elements of this through the cultural revolution, which saw the wholesale slaughter of the intelectual elite. Tienaman was another blow to keep things in check. China, Russia, Cuba, Germany, and other states like them, saw the flight (brain drain) of their most capable people to places where they could use their new found potential.

Chinese leaders seem to have taken notice, and working to expand the opportunity available to the rising literate within their country. They are expanding some freedoms (not as much as we may like) and seeing a return of many people who once fled.

The underpinnings of american society are the public education and the rule of law that allows for each individual to try for the brass ring. Undermine either, and we end in civil war or Big Brother dystopia.

So the question is, how does colonizing Mars or space help to reduce the number of disenfranchised? How does it inhibit statism? If anything, it may increase it as a portion of the population feels that they can never take part in this opportunity (only a small fraction of humans will ever have this chance).

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-03 10:03:43

So the question is, how does colonizing Mars or space help to reduce the number of disenfranchised? How does it inhibit statism? If anything, it may increase it as a portion of the population feels that they can never take part in this opportunity (only a small fraction of humans will ever have this chance).

It depends on how aggressive we are in colonizing. A slow trickle doesn't help much except in a symbolic sense and could lead to greater problems. But a massive effort, one designed to get enough people on the planet to lay a national claim to it is a different beast entirely. If Mars is going to serve the full effect of an open frontier, we need colonization of land rush proportions. This way many thousands of people actually can go, which creates an impression (largely illusory but effective) that anyone can go at almost any time amongst millions more. Millions don't want to, but just the idea that there is a choice, "don't like it you can go to Mars," creates a vent. Millions get the impression that they're making a choice, even if they really aren't. Meanwhile, we get to mold Martian society and set the stage for the future of humanity beyond Earth, not to mention reap the benefits of whatever social or technological advancements the colonists devise.

Of course, such an effort is not in the cards as presently dealt.

Morris · 2004-08-03 11:31:17

Folks, if there is ever any economic or strategic value to Mars, we had darn sure better get there before the Chinese do or we will be "in a world of hurt".
Morris, my prejudice or angle, played out on these boards over the past several years is my belief that the solar system is like a giant sterile petri dish awaiting "contamination" (if you will allow that word) of Terran life.
A seed population of humans, motivated, talented, well educated in engineering and equipped with both robust Closed Environment Life Support Systems (CELSS) and the ability to assimiliate resources harvested from "out there" into their CELSS modules would spark the greatest population explosion in all human history, if we take a view that extends across several centuries.

Sounds good to me. Let's go contaminate!

Seriously, to me the whole thing lies in the demonstration of real, workable, self-support capacity.

Oh, and in reference to the growth of the space industry in China, I picked up this http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04080311 … tml]lunexp. For those of you familiar with the financial details of the space industry, does $117 million sound cheap for a ground station?

smurf975 · 2004-08-03 14:22:16

And whoever gets a foothold first will disproportionately influence that expansion. Whoever colonizes Mars first sets the mold for spacefaring humanity. That alone should be enough reason not to delay.

I disagree as how many french speakers are in the french region of the the US? How many dutch speakers are a great influence to the US?

Even now spanish is getting more and more popular.

---

Being first means nothing as you can also see from the space race, first sattelite (how many actually are russian?), first in space, first on the moon.

BWhite · 2004-08-03 14:31:05

And whoever gets a foothold first will disproportionately influence that expansion. Whoever colonizes Mars first sets the mold for spacefaring humanity. That alone should be enough reason not to delay.
I disagree as how many french speakers are in the french region of the the US? How many dutch speakers are a great influence to the US?
Even now spanish is getting more and more popular.
---
Being first means nothing as you can also see from the space race, first sattelite (how many actually are russian?), first in space, first on the moon.

First colony, meaning babies.

The wabbit theory of evolutionary conflict.

= = =

To quote US Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forestt (not J.E.B Stuart, my bad):

Git 'dere fust-est wid da' must-est

smurf975 · 2004-08-03 14:37:14

And whoever gets a foothold first will disproportionately influence that expansion. Whoever colonizes Mars first sets the mold for spacefaring humanity. That alone should be enough reason not to delay.
I disagree as how many french speakers are in the french region of the the US? How many dutch speakers are a great influence to the US?
Even now spanish is getting more and more popular.
---
Being first means nothing as you can also see from the space race, first sattelite (how many actually are russian?), first in space, first on the moon.
First colony, meaning babies.
The wabbit theory of evolutionary conflict.

Agian I disagree as the French, Dutch and especially the native americans made babies.

Its more who is more advanced (can ship people the fastest and cheapest and be comfortable on the colony), has the higher birth rate, lowest infancy death rate and has overcrowded nations with bad economics and politics (mexico, india and china or old europe "like" which made your ancestors move to the new world)

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-03 14:45:04

First colony, meaning babies.
The wabbit theory of evolutionary conflict.

Precisely.

"US Confederate" General eh? :;):

BWhite · 2004-08-03 14:45:58

The French lost in 1763 at the Battle of Quebec and Napoleon sold Jefferson the Lousiana territory which was much bigger than Louisiana.

The Dutch? When did New York (New Amsterdam) switch to the English?

The native Amricans? Smallpox and muskets took care of them, whether justly or not.

= = =

Okay, fair enough. The first colony is not assured of success (Jamestown comes to mind) but you cannot win if you do not play.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-03 14:48:12

Okay, fair enough. The first colony is not assured of success (Jamestown comes to mind) but you cannot win if you do not play.

No, there are never any guarantees. But if you get there first and establish a presence the game is yours to lose. Or ours as the case may be.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-01 06:22:44

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#2 2004-08-01 08:47:33

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#3 2004-08-01 14:05:30

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#4 2004-08-01 22:59:45

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#5 2004-08-02 06:24:43

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#6 2004-08-02 10:55:32

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#7 2004-08-02 11:23:43

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#8 2004-08-02 13:49:21

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#9 2004-08-02 15:22:33

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#10 2004-08-02 15:26:38

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#11 2004-08-02 15:49:15

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#12 2004-08-02 18:04:37

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#13 2004-08-03 00:52:13

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#14 2004-08-03 02:28:00

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#15 2004-08-03 08:11:10

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#16 2004-08-03 08:30:53

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#17 2004-08-03 09:13:30

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#18 2004-08-03 10:03:43

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#19 2004-08-03 11:31:17

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#20 2004-08-03 14:22:16

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#21 2004-08-03 14:31:05

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#22 2004-08-03 14:37:14

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#23 2004-08-03 14:45:04

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#24 2004-08-03 14:45:58

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

#25 2004-08-03 14:48:12

Re: Will Mars revitalize Terran society?

Board footer