Money - on mars

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-19 15:45:21

Byron,

Josh, you mention that living standards will be much higher than clark suggest...are you envisioning Earth- style living standards in an early Martian settlement?

Not at all. I'm envisioning comfort once you've adapted, though.

We have to differentiate between the kinds of ?living standards.? I'm not talking about luxruries, explicitly. One must realize that you're not going to be eating anything remotely resembling steak on Mars, at least not initally, and probably not for awhile after settlements begin, for example. Hell, one notable example is that you probably won't have toilet paper. Gross!

But you will have at least the American standard of household living. You're going to have air conditioning and heat. You're going to have running water, electricity, and most likely, access to computer technology with lots of interesting stuff (moveis, games, etc- by the time we're poking around on Mars we'd have gotten to storage capacties of hundreds of if not thousands of terabytes, enough to store practially everything of entertainment value which was ever made).

clarks idea of necessities being provideded at a minimal cost (he didn't really say free, you must realize) could never work if necessities are being shipped from Earth. Me and clark have argued countless times about this (it really got bad there for awhile). The shipping and production costs on Earth would obviously have to be compensated somehow, and I cannot see anything that a Mars colony could offer, and even still, I can't see the colonists offering it if they're in a situation where their necessities are provided for a very small cost and they don't have to work (it becomes circular, because it wouldn't be possible for necessities to be provided for a very small cost!).

So I think it's obvious that clark is at the very least talking of a colony which at the very minimal recycles most things, and is at the very tiniest level self sufficient. The numbers couldn't work, otherwise.

Let me expand on the standard of living, though. On Mars, I don't see there being many things to do, so I think that work would be very minimal. On the ISS, scientists are totally swamped doing experiments for Earth based corporations and so on, but what work would there be for Mars colonists to do? You have basically three systems which need to be maintained. Electrical, plumbing, and food.

Now, the very inital colonists, I realize, will probably be having issues, they may not even be able to get their systems working so that they're self sufficient or whatever, and may need outside assistance. (I would call these failed colonies, though!) These inital colonists would pave the way for better technologies, and more self sufficient colonies, and I think we're at that level already with clark. He's talking about a colony with 100s of people. The inital colonies will probably be no bigger than the 20 person Antarctic bases! Experimental colonies.

So, how hard would it be for 100 colonists to maintain these three basic systems? By this time we can assume some of the big problems are already tweaked out by the first experimental colonies (I have a personal belief that an ?experimental colony? could actually manage quite well without having to have previous ?real-world? Mars colony ?data,? but we'll ignore my personal belief for now). Things like scrubbers breaking down, plants dying because of certain unforseen issues, computer systems getting fried because of flaws in certain systems, the list could go on, but you get my point; these issues are probably tweaked away.

At at least, that's where I am, here. If these problems do exist, and we are talking about an experimental colony, then sure, life would be hard, and I would say that the standard of living would be lower.

But I'm a little past that point of Mars colonization; mainly because I think we can do it without having these sorts of problems- but also because some of clarks numbers wouldn't work- I mean, in a totally failing colony, people who didn't work would more than likely be executed or deported or exiled or something, compassion be damned, they are draining resources, and in a failing colony, they are only making it fail at a higher rate.

Assume:

1) Most major problems related to colonization are tweaked out, that is, there aren't any issues with electrical systems, purification systems, gardening systems, and so on, all the bugs are tweaked out and everything is designed ?right.?
2) The colony itself is largely if not completely self sufficient from a necessity point of view (basically X ammount of people can exist indefinitely there), so that outside dependence is largely non-existant. And any dependence on the outside is based upon desire, and not need.

What kind of ?work? would 100 people be doing? I can't imagine much ?work.? I don't consider changing the oil in my car ?work,? it only takes ten minutes if you know what you're doing. Two minutes if you only count the time actually unscrewing a bolt and some caps on oil containers. I wouldn't consider changing out a scrubber, or wiping down a solar panel ?work.? This is no more than hygine. On Earth, especially for Americans, one must work many hours a week (though I guess as I type now I'm not working, but I'm blessed with a lazy job), and so on to survive at the levels that we'd be surviving at on Mars (80% of all work actually goes into paying for energy, funnily enough). This is what I mean by standard of living. Make sense? Since most work is delegated to simple tasks, the real standard of living would be much higher for those on Mars.

Sure, the standard of living would be lower when we talk about Earth past-times or whatever, going out would be prohibitive; most things you do on Earth probably wouldn't exist in any form on Mars. But we're on Mars, we'd be able to invent new cultural past-times! That kind of stuff is irrelevant, experiencing Mars is much greater to us on this forum and in the Mars Society than celebrating Thanksgiving with a real turkey!

clark,

I still fail to see how this system would be less effecient than anything else.

Imagine this.

Colony X has one large greenhouse which is capable of making enough food to feed Y ammount of people, with a population of Y.

Colony A has B number of large greenhouses which are each capable of making enough food to feed C ammount of people, with a population of D.

Colony X distributes food by having people sign up to a central location, ?hiring? workers from all over the colony to work there and grow food. Colony X's distribution center needs to handle Y ammount of requests.

Colony A distributes food by having people sign up to whereever is nearest to them, ?hiring? workers within the remote area only. Colony A has B distribution centers, each only having to handle C ammont of requests.

Which system scales better? And interestingly, which system gives people more options? Colony X would have a certain cet of guidelines, everyone in the colony would have to eat the same kinds food, whereas Colony A would be able to have councils which each are able to decide which food they want to grow at a given momment.

Now, sure, you could have different sectors of a central greenhouse delegated to individual parts of a colony, but this would be decentralization.

Clearly, when you think about it, decentralization does scale better and more efficiently. The best way to do this is to have each person have their own plot of greenhouse. With a little imagination, it wouldn't take much for these people to cultivate their own food, and I would imagine that it could be quite trivial. I think the resturant analogy still continues to be the best analogy over these concepts.

soph · 2003-03-19 17:08:07

Clearly, when you think about it, decentralization does scale better and more efficiently. The best way to do this is to have each person have their own plot of greenhouse. With a little imagination, it wouldn't take much for these people to cultivate their own food, and I would imagine that it could be quite trivial. I think the resturant analogy still continues to be the best analogy over these concepts.

But there's a reason we don't. Specialization allows people to perform other tasks. If everybody had to take care of their own greenhouse plot, they'd have less time for everything else. Now, if dedicated labor was applied to a few centralized greenhouse plots, you'd allow others to specialize more, and be more efficient.

That's why agricultural improvements allowed people to move off of farms and into cities---it's more efficient to have people specialized in labor.

soph · 2003-03-19 17:09:37

and I'm not saying one greenhouse-there's no reason you can't have 5 or 6 in competition.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-19 23:28:22

I think we ran the specialization argument into the ground before, clark.

But could you humor me?

Specialization allows people to perform other tasks.

What other tasks would colonists be doing on Mars? Say we've taken care of maintenience, what else is there?

Specialization certainly does delegate tasks more efficiently when a certain task is difficult, there's no doubt about that. We certainly can't train everyone to make microprocessors, at least not until we've created a sufficiently simple interface and process. But maintenance procedures for a colony should be relatively simple, unless it's designed without simplicity or ease of use in mind.

Can you think of a reason why things wouldn't be designed with simplicity or ease of use in mind?

I admit that perhaps some inital colonies would be ?broken,? if you will, but I should reiterate, I'm talking about colonies which have passed the tweaking stage.

If everybody had to take care of their own greenhouse plot, they'd have less time for everything else.

Heh, I doubt very seriously we could pull that off, anyway. I mean, a person can probably easily handle ten peoples plots. Plants tend to, you know, grow without much supervision, and in controlled conditions like a greenhouse, there isn't much weed pulling or stuff like that. Those who would tend their own plots would probably enjoy such a task, and would probably be asked by others to tend their plots ocassionally.

When I was growing up, we tended several dozen sheep, and even had a two acre garden. One person with a good dog could easily do the task of tending sheep, and the garden practially grew itself, especially with the help of timed sprinklers. Truth is, I sat around all day.

Anyway, I was just saying that X ammount of greenhouse(s) would be, by rule of the colony, delegated to Y ammount of people, equally. These people can, if they so wish, take it upon themselves to tend to their garden, or by a show of goodness, take turns tending each others plots. The latter will probably most often be the case, since one person can quite easily tend to several plots. (This is without much automation, too- you can only imagine how easy it would be with some level of automation.)

I guess we could have specialized labor forces running the gardening equipment, especially if it was complex to run, but, what happens when they decide they want to rule the colony? Since they're the only ones who know how to operate the machinery, and indeed, are really the only ones who control the greenhouse, what's to prevent them? What's to prevent an outside source from bribing them? Maybe Ares Corp promises them more freedom for taking over the colony and giving everyone Ares Corp-style freedom.

Byron · 2003-03-20 07:47:01

Oh, if only I had a brain...

Sorry, I just had to put that in there...

On Mars, I don't see there being many things to do, so I think that work would be very minimal.

Please assure me you don't really believe this to be true. Now, I do credit you and many of the other participants on NewMars to having a lot more brains than the average Joe Blow out there....otherwise we wouldn't be on this *intellectually-minded* forum to begin with. But sometimes our brains do get led astray by our desires, hopes and dreams....I'll be the first to admit that it happens to me more times than I care to count. This is where a bit of healthy debate comes in...lol.

Assuming that the initial problems of living on Mars are licked, and our hypothetical settlement(s) are well on their way to becoming part of a new, thriving Martian society. So our new interplanetary pioneers are now sitting around engorging themselves on mindless "entertainment" from Earth as the thin, bitter winds howl outside the dome day and night....no, I don't think so.

Come on, if you lived on Mars, would you really be content with this kind of life? Not me! Even if all food production was 100% automated, with machines, robots and AI's taking care of everyone's needs, (with absolute, ironclad safety, no less) I'd be spending nearly every waking hour exploring and learning about my new world...after all, I'd be representing the hopes and dreams of millions of people back on Earth, some of which I'd be hoping would be kind enough to send me things me and my fellow pioneers just can't produce on our own. If I was on Mars, never to return to Earth, I'd be figuring out ways to make the rivers of Mars flow once again and paving the way for the great, globe-girdling uber-forests that will be the hallmark of making Mars into humanity's true second home in the Solar System. I'd want to build and build and build some more, so that I have more room to move around and to pave the way for more immigrants from Earth to follow me in my footsteps. Playing 3DVR games and watching Hollywood's drivel will be the very LAST thing on my mind...otherwise *why* would I be here in the first place? Just because I enjoy what I do, indeed it's my whole body and soul and reason for my being on Mars - doesn't mean it's not work...it's just work that I can truly take pride in, and every moment I sit around not doing my "work" is a moment of discontent.

And when I grow old and feeble and death comes knocking on my doorstep, I'll be able to face it with the comfort that the children of Mars will someday be able to play on pink-sand beaches, frolicking in the low gravity combers rolling in on the vast Oceanus Borealis, even though they probably won't even give a second's thought of all the people that made all this possible. Indeed, I see my work on Mars as the ultimate gift to the future, just as the men and woman that have preceeded me have given the sweat of their brow to make it possible for me to be on Mars in the first place.

In short, me and my fellow pioneers will be going to Mars to embrace work, not escape it. Indeed, the work I do on Mars will be real work, not the useless, soul-sapping drivel most of us are forced to perform on this resource-saturated Empire America Earth of ours...this is work that actually means something, and indeed, this is what gives my life true meaning and satisfaction.

If only I could go to Mars tomorrow... *sheds tear*

B

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 11:51:10

Byron, c'mon, I'm in complete aggreement with you here! Work is being used by me in a context that's explicitly related to survival.

People would be quite bored not going out and doing other types of things around their colonies. I expect, very seriously, for some explorers to never be able to stay put, living in vehicles which can travel very far and are nuclear powered, requiring very infrequient refueling.

Perhaps KSRs books biased me a little. Or perhaps I've gotten too stuck on the laws of thermodynamics, but I do differentiate between types of work. I find that there are two general kinds; work for need, and work for desire. I think that the former will be minimalized, while I think the latter could possibly be increased!

Personally, I think I could find myself in a political position on Mars, trying to convince people to do what I think was the ?right thing,? and not to ban things like immigration (funny, huh, the anarchists in KSRs novels hated the immigrators, or so it seemed). Such a position would probably be harder most things I've ever done (even my old stressful finance job probably wouldn't be as hard as a political position).

If you can differentiate work like this, I think you might be able to agree with me.

I think I would live for Martian sunsets, I don't think I would live to maintain the frequently breaking hydroponic trays. Living on Mars where you're constantly working to keep systems maintained would be pointless, especially since we'd have the technology to do things more efficiently.

I certainly didn't mean to say that Earth-past-times would take over Martian past-times, BTW. I was just using that as an example that technology on Mars would be much better than for the average person here and now.

But surely, at the end of a long day making terraformation calculations, and sculpting the planet in a rational way that met all the colonies political desires, in the recently built beowulf cluster made for that explicit purpose, you may want to sit down and watch an old B&W film with your sweetheart?!

Just because I enjoy what I do [...] doesn't mean it's not work.

I know, and I don't mean it this way. But certainly, you wouldn't enjoy maintaining broken systems all day, only to be able to enjoy perhaps a Martian sunset before passing out in exhaustion?

I did once say that my love for Mars could put me in a position where I would work in mines all day just to enjoy a Martian sunset (in the Ares Corp thread)... but... I wouldn't be totally content doing that, and I would certainly be forming some sort of revolution in my head.

Am I crazy to differentiate the types of work? I always used work in a ?negative? context, because I don't know very many people who enjoy their work (to survive). I'm actualy my own exception! (I've had my share of miserable jobs, though.) I recall reading something an anarchist said (Bob Black, I believe), he said that if you enjoy work, it can't be called ?work,? it must be called ?play.?

Google for him, it's a good article he wrote. Though I don't fully agree with it, he's one of my more favorite current day anarchist thinkers.

If you ask me what kind of ?play? I think we'd be doing on Mars, you might be surprised to find me list all the things you called work!, and much more!

soph · 2003-03-20 15:39:00

I guess we could have specialized labor forces running the gardening equipment, especially if it was complex to run, but, what happens when they decide they want to rule the colony?

Which is exactly why I think capitalism is in order. If the greenhouses were separate, competing entities, one greenhouse's ploy to take over would be the others' opportunity to take their business.

Do farmers try to take over here on Earth?

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 18:47:45

If the greenhouses were separate, competing entities, one greenhouse's ploy to take over would be the others' opportunity to take their business.

But what if I have a more productive greenhouse and I want to buy all the other greenhouses and make them more productive too? Are you suggesting anti-monopoly laws!? How dare you! I should be able to take my productivity as far as I wish!

Do farmers try to take over here on Earth?

Hmm, I'm sure somewhere in our history controlling food production was a good way for some people to get their way, but I can't think of an example. Food tends to be distributed well here on Earth, though (even though we have billions of starving people), so it's not like it could be used in a lot of cases. We were explicitly talking about a centralized scenario. Perhaps the point could be applied to oil here on Earth better than it can be to farmers. The strikes in Venezuela are a remarkable example of how people can take over a relatively centralized resource.

soph · 2003-03-20 19:03:44

But what if I have a more productive greenhouse and I want to buy all the other greenhouses and make them more productive too? Are you suggesting anti-monopoly laws!? How dare you! I should be able to take my productivity as far as I wish!

Yes, I am. How many times do I have to say capitalism can be regulated before you get off of laissez faire capitalism?

Care for another round of how Marxism in its purest form will never work? It would bore me, because nothing can be applied in its purest form.

So, yes, there is nothing wrong with regulations on monopolies. The economy should benefit the society, and regulations on capitalism assuage an otherwise fault of the system.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 19:18:06

Yes, I am. How many times do I have to say capitalism can be regulated before you get off of laissez faire capitalism?

This isn't about ?can be? this is completely about ?must be.? That simple. I just find monopoly laws to be contridictary on the moral side of things. I should, if I'm good enough, be able to own everything.

Hostile takeovers are legal.

Care for another round of how Marxism in its purest form will never work? It would bore me, because nothing can be applied in its purest form.

Anarchism can.

Of course, that's assuming by ?pure form,? we're talking about basic core concepts; there are many forms of anarchism, but they all adhere to the basic core concepts.

So, yes, there is nothing wrong with regulations on monopolies. The economy should benefit the society, and regulations on capitalism assuage an otherwise fault of the system.

Muwha, you're talking like a socialist... :;):

soph · 2003-03-20 19:25:38

Anarchism can.

Yeah, ok.

Only according to you and Proudhon, a long dead, unschooled quasi-economist.

This isn't about ?can be? this is completely about ?must be.? That simple. I just find monopoly laws to be contridictary on the moral side of things. I should, if I'm good enough, be able to own everything.

So you would rather have Microsoft take over the world?

There's nothing contradictory about it. If you can't get past this whole pure vs. applied capitalism, then think of it this way:

Real Capitalism is a separate system from Smith Capitalism. They are not the same.

Of course, that's assuming by ?pure form,? we're talking about basic core concepts; there are many forms of anarchism, but they all adhere to the basic core concepts.

Adam Smith never said government regulation was bad-in fact, he said government regulation might be a good thing.

Muwha, you're talking like a socialist...

Socialism can augment capitalism, but it could not stand on its own. Capitalism in its theoretical form has weaknesses, but so what? A modified version works in practice.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 19:53:32

Yeah, ok.
Only according to you and Proudhon, a long dead, unschooled quasi-economist.

Don't forget the Laws of Thermodynamics.

So you would rather have Microsoft take over the world?

No, I just rather there be a consistant definition for property. One that doesn't say, ?You can only get ahead as far as some magical number says, and no further.?

I want to be king!

There's nothing contradictory about it. If you can't get past this whole pure vs. applied capitalism, then think of it this way:
Real Capitalism is a separate system from Smith Capitalism. They are not the same.

Um, we're not arguing about different varieties of capitalism, we're lamenting the fact that there simply isn't a consistant definition for property.

You have this mantra that you should be able to ?get ahead? but then you contridict yourself and say that people can't get ahead when they reach a certain level. I find this stupid, at the very least, since you're advocating ?getting ahead sometimes.?

Socialism can augment capitalism, but it could not stand on its own.

Capitalism can augment socialism, but it could not stand on its own.

soph · 2003-03-20 19:55:04

Capitalism has existed and survived without socialism, the opposite isnt true.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 19:57:02

Socialism exists in every living multi-celluar organism.

But since we're talking about humans, any successful version of capitalism always incorporates socialistic aspects.

soph · 2003-03-20 19:58:00

Um, we're not arguing about different varieties of capitalism, we're lamenting the fact that there simply isn't a consistant definition for property.
You have this mantra that you should be able to ?get ahead? but then you contridict yourself and say that people can't get ahead when they reach a certain level. I find this stupid, at the very least, since you're advocating ?getting ahead sometimes.?

Nothing to do with property, it has to do with competition. You can have as much wealth as you want, as long as you don't deprive this privilege to your competitors.

Is it stupid that we have freedom of speech, but we can't yell "fire" in a movie theater?

soph · 2003-03-20 19:59:23

Socialism exists in every living multi-celluar organism.

So does capitalism. The best organism wins. The idea of competition and wealth exists in nature. It's Darwinism.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 20:21:37

Nothing to do with property, it has to do with competition. You can have as much wealth as you want, as long as you don't deprive this privilege to your competitors.

It has everything to do with property and the acquisition of property. It's not my fault the process irrevocably denys competition. What? I can't extend the offer to buy someone out because I'm more productive? I'm more productive, if they don't sell out, then I'm going to set up shop anyway and they'll just have to deal. Like you say later on, it's Darwinism.

If we really followed the idea that people should be allowed to compete, we'd be talking about socialism. ?Everyone is equal[ly competitive],? is a socialistic ideal.

Is it stupid that we have freedom of speech, but we can't yell "fire" in a movie theater?

Nope, but this is a straw man, because we don't make a rule that says we're all free to compete equally. We make a rule that says we can own as much stuff as we want. Any rule about equal competition is a contridiction.

So does capitalism. The best organism wins. The idea of competition and wealth exists in nature. It's Darwinism.

Well, from my understanding of multi-cellular organisms, capitalistic organization only exists in things like the immune system, but your point is taken to a degree, but then we get into things like intraspecific and extraspecific organization.

Are packs of wolves capitalistic or socialistic? Extraspecifically, they're probably more capitalistic, they do, after all, eat other animals, and compete for resources in the environment. But Intraspecifically they're more socialistic; they work together, etc.

We could make the comparasions all day and all night, though (I'm sure you could find just as many capitalistic examples as I could socialistic), but just because a system has been around forever doesn't make it ?right,? so I don't even know why I cared to respond to your statement.

soph · 2003-03-20 20:39:17

but just because a system has been around forever doesn't make it ?right,?

I think you were the one who tried to make that point with socialism. But if you care to try to point fingers, go ahead.

It has everything to do with property and the acquisition of property. It's not my fault the process irrevocably denys competition. What? I can't extend the offer to buy someone out because I'm more productive? I'm more productive, if they don't sell out, then I'm going to set up shop anyway and they'll just have to deal. Like you say later on, it's Darwinism.

The system intrinsically supports competition. Bill Gates is an abberation, this is why laws must be in place-to account for the occurrences in which the system doesn't perform the way it is supposed to, and the unexpected happens.

Capitalism intrinsically promotes competition. Monopolies also violate the Constitution, because if they become to powerful, they might be a threat to the "Right to the free Pursuit of Happiness," in other words, a monopoly can destroy any other companies. Thus, the case may be, the so-called hypocrisy may be a result more of society than capitalism.

But Intraspecifically they're more socialistic; they work together, etc.

Er, this isn't necessarily socialistic (I can work together with say, Staples to provide both with a competitive advantage, this isn't socialism, this is capitalism), but I really would care to discuss the actual issue.

It has everything to do with property and the acquisition of property. It's not my fault the process irrevocably denys competition. What? I can't extend the offer to buy someone out because I'm more productive? I'm more productive, if they don't sell out, then I'm going to set up shop anyway and they'll just have to deal. Like you say later on, it's Darwinism.

What? I can't own a bomb because I might kill somebody?

You can acquire property without being monopolistic. Being monopolistic isn't a crime in itself, it is the stifling of any and all competition that got Msoft into trouble.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:07:05

I think you were the one who tried to make that point with socialism. But if you care to try to point fingers, go ahead.

Oh, I thought that's the point you were trying to make about ?capitalism [existing] without socialism.?

Monopolies also violate the Constitution, because if they become to powerful, they might be a threat to the "Right to the free Pursuit of Happiness,"

Hahaha, then I guess anything which doesn't let me be happy violates the constitution. I hate work, the constitution is totally violated.

You can acquire property without being monopolistic. Being monopolistic isn't a crime in itself, it is the stifling of any and all competition that got Msoft into trouble.

Exactly. That's why I ask you, why can't I buy out all the greenhouses? I'm not doing anything remotely wrong. I'm just more productive. Microsoft got in trouble because they leveraged their position, and made it impossible for other people to compete with underhanded deals (the EULA they had for OS partitioning was quite devious). My greenhouses, on the other hand, are just more productive. Nothing underhanded, everything is honest. I just grow stuff better. What's wrong with that? Monopolies can be perfectly legal, and many are.

soph · 2003-03-20 21:14:44

Exactly. That's why I ask you, why can't I buy out all the greenhouses? I'm not doing anything remotely wrong. I'm just more productive. Microsoft got in trouble because they leveraged their position, and made it impossible for other people to compete with underhanded deals (the EULA they had for OS partitioning was quite devious). My greenhouses, on the other hand, are just more productive. Nothing underhanded, everything is honest. I just grow stuff better. What's wrong with that? Monopolies can be perfectly legal, and many are.

Let me rephrase than, if you buy out all the other greenhouses, and then try to take over the colony/crush competition, the government has the right to intervene.

Hahaha, then I guess anything which doesn't let me be happy violates the constitution. I hate work, the constitution is totally violated.

It's your choice to go to work. And the constitution doesn't violate "happiness," it protects the "Pursuit of Happiness," in other words, your right to make a living.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:28:44

Let me rephrase than, if you buy out all the other greenhouses, and then try to take over the colony/crush competition, the government has the right to intervene.

Oh, wait, though, why would I crush competition, I would just continue buying everything out until I owned everything. Then everyone would work for me, and I would practically own the government, and so on. If you let me have one monopoly, there's nothing keeping me from having a hundred monopolies.

It's your choice to go to work. And the constitution doesn't violate "happiness," it protects the "Pursuit of Happiness," in other words, your right to make a living.

Uh huh. I want to make a living without working! :;):

soph · 2003-03-20 21:31:10

Oh, wait, though, why would I crush competition, I would just continue buying everything out until I owned everything. Then everyone would work for me, and I would practically own the government, and so on. If you let me have one monopoly, there's nothing keeping me from having a hundred monopolies.

Wouldn't happen. This is another area where monopoly laws apply. You can't own horizontal monopolies. This is another area where Microsoft bumped into trouble (Microsoft and IE, or Microsoft products exclusive).

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:35:40

Just goes to show you.

I like consistant definitions for things. Guess it's my philosophical side.

But... I wasn't going to do anything underhanded with my secondary monopolies. I was just going to own them and run them, not make deals under the table or anything... :;):

clark · 2003-03-21 10:03:44

And now if you two are done, I think you've demonstrated the problem with capaitalism OR anarchy.

In the end, you have no common agreement, and only competing forces.

Competition creates dispoportionate distribution. One person gets more, another gets less.

Capatilism, in any form, is merely an idea that the "winner" is the person who does the job "well", so all of the laws we instutite are merely to help define what we call "well" and who should be the "winner".

Anarchy is still competition, just with less rules, and less strict agreements. You don't have to do anything you don't want to. Even if inaction results in harm in another, you are under no obligation to act. Sure, we can have basic agreements in an anarchy to deal with situations yo force inaction- but by and large, we are all on our own.

Niether is the solution to space colonization guys. You can't have a system that creates animosity through competition. Food as an example: One person, or a few people, run all of the food production, they in effect can set the price, and call the shots. It is a neccessity. However, it is a double edged sword. I call it the Mother Bear syndrome. Ever hear about playng with a Mama Bear's cub? When you threaten a neccessity, however small the threat, people become insecure. Terroism is but the latest example. Social instability will simply destroy the dream of space colonization. Extremes will destroy the dream of space colonization.

No matter how many saftey percautions you take, no matter how many back up systems you have, it is all a fragile house of cards. It is NOT earth. It is not an open environment.

For all intents and purposes, you might as well be living on a 747 at 30,000 feet.

What are you expectations of behavior for people on a plane? What do you consider reasonable?

Then there is this idea that we wil have reaached a new pinaccle of mankind, through space colonization, yet we will perpetuate the same silly system of kill or be killed.

Every neccessity will be provided by te Community, by the habitat. This is a reality that no one can reason around.

It costs too much to send or ship people back and forth- so you're stuck. And if you're born there, what are your rweal options for leaving? Almost zero.

So, people in this environment are essentilly trapped in this environment (yes, they chose to be there). Yet this environment cannot support the individual. The ONLY thing that can is the GROUP. The COMMUNITY. The Community is YOUR life, so it guraentee's the neccessities for that life. But in all things, there is a common agreement where we each give what we receive. So it neccessarily means that a portion of your work, the sweat of your brow, is used for the betterment of the community upon which all life depends.

Even if we are dealing with a situation where there are thousands of communities, the environmental reality is still exactly the same. Each community is little more than an island- an oasis in the red vacum of Mars.

And let us also be rationale about how this is going to go down in turns of production of basic neccessities. The fact of the matter is that the situation will be highly automated. The greenhouses will be highly productive in terms of the number of people neccessary to make the food versus how much food they make. Indeed, the number of people neccessary to support a 100 person base, and a 1000 person base will be nearly the same. You need air, food, water, power, and maintenance. Additional people will be providing services not related to base maintenance. In other words, they have an export type service- perhaps running telemetry for some research group on Earth. It is these people that bring in the outside currency to get the things that the base cannot provide for itself. This isn't new, this is how all economies work. You have an export segment of the society, and ten more jobs are generated to help take care of these people. And we all have to work as it is becuase we need to work to get the basic neccessities of life. Where do you see discontent? In those areas where it is difficult to secure jobs to provide the neccessities of life. That leads to social instability.

There will be no need to work for basic neccesseties in space. That is a fact folks. Basic neccesseties must be provided as a matter of course, to do otherwise is to invite the same problems we have on Earth, in space. So, where does that leave us? Communism failed, right? So we can't expect people to work without some kind of motivating force. Capitalism, we use basic neccessities, and then work on providing as much opportunity as possible so people don't loot and riot because they can't gett food and water. In space, what else can we use to motivate people? Tell them we're going to shut off their air supply? Rationale people don't even consider this. Sensible people will see the honesty of what I am pointing out here and now.

The very thing that will motivate people, and indeed change Earth for the better, is the lesson we learn from living in space. In trying to build a society in space.

If, as you say Josh, humanities freedom will come at the hands of cheap and abundant energy (something I am inclined to agree with), then surely you can understand this as well. Think of a Martian colony, that will ostenibly be providing servixces to Luna and asteroid mining (sometime in the future). They will all be doing the same thing, servicing Earth, os supporting those who service Earth. Asteroid mining or even luna mining means the ability to create SPS sattelites for Earth. It means cheap and abundant natural resources, not just energy.

It will become possible to provide all the neccessities of life, on Earth. Think of the opportunity for mankind if we have a model to learn from at that point.

Too much daydreaming today...

soph · 2003-03-21 17:02:52

clark, but in 100-200 years, Mars won't be a red desert, terraformation can bring out water, food can easily be grown by extracting water, and within 500 years, a reasonably breathable atmosphere can be in place.

Mars won't always be a desert. 100 years is a SHORT time. We can drill out lakes and recycle water. Agriculture won't be some luxury, it can be done relatively easily.

Mars won't be a permanent prison colony. Within a few centuries, we can make it fairly hospitable, not paradise, but hospitable. Within 500-1000 years, it can be as livable as Earth.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-03-19 15:45:21

Re: Money - on mars

#52 2003-03-19 17:08:07

Re: Money - on mars

#53 2003-03-19 17:09:37

Re: Money - on mars

#54 2003-03-19 23:28:22

Re: Money - on mars

#55 2003-03-20 07:47:01

Re: Money - on mars

#56 2003-03-20 11:51:10

Re: Money - on mars

#57 2003-03-20 15:39:00

Re: Money - on mars

#58 2003-03-20 18:47:45

Re: Money - on mars

#59 2003-03-20 19:03:44

Re: Money - on mars

#60 2003-03-20 19:18:06

Re: Money - on mars

#61 2003-03-20 19:25:38

Re: Money - on mars

#62 2003-03-20 19:53:32

Re: Money - on mars

#63 2003-03-20 19:55:04

Re: Money - on mars

#64 2003-03-20 19:57:02

Re: Money - on mars

#65 2003-03-20 19:58:00

Re: Money - on mars

#66 2003-03-20 19:59:23

Re: Money - on mars

#67 2003-03-20 20:21:37

Re: Money - on mars

#68 2003-03-20 20:39:17

Re: Money - on mars

#69 2003-03-20 21:07:05

Re: Money - on mars

#70 2003-03-20 21:14:44

Re: Money - on mars

#71 2003-03-20 21:28:44

Re: Money - on mars

#72 2003-03-20 21:31:10

Re: Money - on mars

#73 2003-03-20 21:35:40

Re: Money - on mars

#74 2003-03-21 10:03:44

Re: Money - on mars

#75 2003-03-21 17:02:52

Re: Money - on mars

Board footer