The Future of the Solar System

Palomar · 2003-04-01 16:38:26

*After the following (the Bill Gates story) was posted earlier today, it got me thinking and rethinking certain matters.

What if this story were true? Is the future of the Solar System to be as the past history of Earth has been: The wealthy elitists taking a conquering approach and claiming this-and-that territory as their own?

Maybe we can hear John Lennon in the background, singing "Imagine" as we wander away from home and into space...but I wonder how overly optimistic that is. No, don't tell me...I know how overly optimistic it is already. Thank god at least a treaty or two has been penned and signed years ago, regarding "extraterrestrial real estate"...but then, we know how it goes with treaties and the like (breakable on whim).

Is the future of the Solar System that of being divided up like a pie, with aggressive territorial stakes and claims made on the rings of Saturn, portions of Europa, all of Mars, etc.?

We live in a society, now, where no natural satellite, planet or even asteroid is considered PROPERTY of some nation or small group of exclusive, elitist individuals. I don't want to lose that; I don't want to see the solar system divided up some day between exploiters and glory hunters, slicing it up between them all like a huge pie which orbits the Sun.

I had to ask myself today: Do I believe in manned space exploration AT ANY COST? No, I don't. Is it possible for mankind to reach out into the solar system without grabbing and demanding this belongs to me, you take that, etc.? I wonder. I hope so.

I can't imagine our Solar System some day being divided up as property between nations or other groups of people. The thought repulses me.

I'm -NOT- seeking a debate, not interested in debating this; rather, I'm seeking opinions about this issue.

What is your opinion?

--Cindy

Bill Gates to Lead New Private Mars Effort

A MARSNEWS.COM EXCLUSIVE

April 1st - In a stunning announcement made today, many of the world's leading financial barons will fund a new program of human Mars exploration and will launch a piloted mission by 2010. The group also hopes to claim the entire planet using existing laws.

http://www.marsnews.com/

clark · 2003-04-01 16:59:48

"I can't imagine our Solar System some day being divided up as property between nations or other groups of people. "

Yet we all accept our nations dividing up the property here on earth.

How is the solar system any different? Or better yet, why do we expect 'more' from how we treat the solar system?

Not argumenative, just wondering.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-01 20:55:01

I'm posting in this thread because it was created before the duplicate.

We can run down a list of how it's different, from an economical point of view, but I've been there so many times before with you clark, you should know my position.

Cindy, I think that it would be horribly draconian. I think, that personally, the way technology will have to work in space (ie, self contained, highly efficient, decentralized, shared equally, etc), would circumvent most kinds of welfare difference, and people who do manage to appropriate via whatever means, would simply have no one to ?sell to,? or at least, the value of their resource would be decreased greatly (what is the value of a grain of sand? what is the value of an asteriod in the midst of thousands?). Though I can really see a perfect opportunity for real free trade, where no one can realistically control one resource over another, there is still potential for one group or whatever to control resources by force.

Not in the way that a factory controls the gold nearby which it mines, but in the way that a police state controls all who don't obey certain guidelines. Thousands of militant people controlling a large region of Mars under the guise that they own it is quite disconcerting. Especially if they decide that they can take others establishments under the guise of free market appropriation or whatever. ?We own all the water in this area, pay us to use it with plots of your own developed land!?

I don't like it one bit. But I feel personally such a scenario isn't going to happen, and that if there were rich people who did manage to do something like that April Fools article suggested, I honestly couldn't see it being a bad thing. As of this point, any progress into space is progress. If you don't think this way it's kind of like complaining that new drugs are expensive. Of course they are, let the rich people pay for 'em, so that their price can go down! The development has to be payed for somehow.

Palomar · 2003-04-01 21:07:19

*Indeed, it is a difficult question, and one I thought of while composing my post: Humans have divided all of Earth into continents, nations, states, etc. I think some of this is unavoidable, given human nature...but I'd hate to see great levels of possessiveness reaching out and ensnaring the Solar System. Some of our habits can at least be modified. How modified? By what standard? How implemented? I don't know.

MarsGuy (answered in the other thread -- this thread duplicated itself somehow) that only residents of a planet or asteroid be given property rights. I'm much more comfortable with that idea.

Sticky subject, I know. But it just concerns me, the possibility of corporations snatching and gobbling up huge chunks of the Solar System for various ores and minerals, etc., and being absolute tyrants over that piece of planet or asteroid or whatever; corporations ain't democracies, folks. They are run like tyrannies.

I don't mean to sound dramatic...

--Cindy

soph · 2003-04-01 21:15:40

Like I've said before, I'm all for regulated capitalism economies, with democratic/republican representation. For reasons I've stated before, I think the best way to get into space and stay there is by making money.

But I really don't want to get into another economics discussion, because it's always a circular loop.

But I will say that I'd like to see an interplanetary government, that allows for individual sovereignty. General rules (i.e. no warships in space), but nothing that would restrict commerce for a specific entity (ex: restricting asteroid mining would be unfairly harmful to say, Mars).

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-01 21:35:49

I don't think giving property rights for individual planets fixes the problem entirely, Cindy.

I was going on the assumption that:

A. Rich entity goes to Mars and builds a city.
B. Rich entity owns everything they control on Mars and dictates what they wish.

It doesn't matter if ?rich entity? is a person or a corporation or a non-profit, or a Morman colony of weirdo perverts! Wal-Mart of Mars isn't going to have much if any economic connection to Wal-Mart of Earth. Mars and Earth are seperate worlds, simply seperating their property claims doesn't achieve anything, in my opinion.

soph · 2003-04-01 21:41:03

How many people have the resources to build a full city? Even a single mission would nearly bankrupt Bill Gates.

The rich entity may pave the way, but to make profits, they will have to sell some of this property to less affluent entities, which transfers the property. It is almost entirely impossible for a single entity to monopolisze a planet.

Palomar · 2003-04-01 22:02:13

I don't think giving property rights for individual planets fixes the problem entirely, Cindy.
I was going on the assumption that:
A. Rich entity goes to Mars and builds a city.
B. Rich entity owns everything they control on Mars and dictates what they wish.

*No, indeed it doesn't. And you answered before I was able to add to my previous post that no one entity (good choice of words, btw!) be allowed to "buy" the entire frickin' planet, asteroid, whatever. Limit the amount of property any ondwelling entity can possess...though what the limits would be, how they would be determined, who would enforce the property laws, who would set said laws up in the first place, etc., etc. -- of course, I have no way of knowing how that would be accomplished and I can't really speculate on it.

I just know I was very angry at the concept of 4 men from Earth wishing to claim Mars as their own. April Fool's prank or not, it really struck me hard -- the implications of it.

And I'm sorry to say I honestly am not feeling well right now. Which is why I said, initially (in the first post) that I'd rather hear opinions on the matter than debate it. I don't mean to imply that anyone here -is- trying to draw me into a debate, but on the other hand I don't want to seem to be "copping out" on a debate, either. I'm simply not up to it.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-01 23:24:27

soph, Bill Gates, or any rich entity for that matter, would have to build the infrastructure first (they would profit much more by building the infrastructure than by simply doing a couple of Mars-direct style missions, certainly). The first computers were expensive, but once the processes were enhanced, computers became quite cheap. I doubt it would bankrupt Bill Gates if he did it right. And if a rich entity did build such infrastructure, and controlled the whole thing, then I fear there would be ample opportunity for the draconian world I spoke of.

I don't think Cindy intends this to turn into a debate, otherwise I would simply formalize my reasons for this. It's not necessary, though. It's just a harmless opinion, I just needed to explain that we're not necessarily talking about some rich entity dropping all their money on one really expensive vacation, especially since the article Cindy linked explicitly mentioned returns on the joke ?investment.?

Cindy,

Limit the amount of property any ondwelling entity can possess...

Ahh, I love ya Cindy. Such refreshing points of view are lovely.

Proudhon pointed out, in his Eighth Proposition, that in a finite system, everyone must work with finite resources, rules that allow someone to have infinite resources, or rather, appropriate endlessly, are contridictary and simply make no sense!

I just know I was very angry at the concept of 4 men from Earth wishing to claim Mars as their own.

The concept doesn't bother me much at all, but I'm too much of an optimist sometimes, perhaps, because I don't see it actually happening. This isn't to say that it's not possible, of course, and that's what I think should be stressed. Corporations (ie, rich entities) do this sort of thing all the time, just look at the Banana Republic. If it did happen, I would be very annoyed, and would be frustrated that I would have to stage a revolution or two.

Vive la Revolution! :;):

And I'm sorry to say I honestly am not feeling well right now. Which is why I said, initially (in the first post) that I'd rather hear opinions on the matter than debate it.

I've been trying to respect that particular thing you said. My inital post actually did outline a lot of philosophical stuff with regards to this, but then I realized that you explicitly wanted an opinion about it, nothing more, so I cut it out (you might see the residuals of that in my third paragraph- I left that part in because, again, I am optimistic that that sort of thing wouldn't happen).

I do hope you feel better though. You've probably already went to bed, so maybe a good nights rest will cure whatever ails you.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-02 01:43:32

I say we work to get people to Mars. Once they get there they - yes, they not we - can figure out a way to manage their planet. Let's face it - we're probably not even going to set foot on Mars.
If a couple of old, white, balding, republican males want to own the whole planet, they can try their luck. But, I don't think the Martians will put up with it for very long.

Palomar · 2003-04-02 09:07:47

*Thanks Josh; I'm feeling somewhat better, thank you. I read the post by MarsGuy as well; I agree.

IMO, the most troubling aspect of the fictitious "Gates & Co." scenario is that it would, eventually, invite war. I'd hate to see humans making the same stupid mistakes as we've seen recurrently here, on Earth.

If an entity or entities are disallowed the "privilege" of grabbing huge properties for themselves, this will, IMO, avert many potentials for war. What is the fuel which drives most wars? Property.

This must be avoided; it -can- be avoided.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-04-02 09:43:52

If an entity or entities are disallowed the "privilege" of grabbing huge properties for themselves, this will, IMO, avert many potentials for war. What is the fuel which drives most wars? Property.

From many of the posts, it would seem that all are examining space expansion and colonization through the use of market driven forces to achieve the goal. Yet, as Cindy points out, property, i.e. resources, are the very thing that leads to violence between people.

So how can we hope to have a stable long term space expansion predicated on a system we know leads to conflict?

Who would such a conflict take place with? The space colonies versus earth? Individual corporations versus one another?

Really, who owns what is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Ownership of property is but one part of any equation.

The other part- the important part, is controlling access to that resource. What good is all the oil in the world if you don't have the pipes to bring it people who want it?

What good are all the moons in all the heavens, if you have no way to bring people to the moons, or no way to bring pieces of the moon to people?

Let's look at the treaties- who agreed to them? Who didn't?
Those with no access, or with little hope of ever getting access to the heavens all signed treaties saying that the heavens are the heritage of all mankind. It's meaningless though. Even if every country claimed this moon or that planet, it still would mean very little. It becomes a matter of who cant get there- who can utilize those resources.

Even if 4 rich white men claim ownership of Mars, so what? they still have to get there. They still have to figure a way to get people there, or pieces of Mars back here.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-04-01 16:38:26

Re: The Future of the Solar System

#2 2003-04-01 16:59:48

Re: The Future of the Solar System

#3 2003-04-01 20:55:01

Re: The Future of the Solar System

#4 2003-04-01 21:07:19

Re: The Future of the Solar System

#5 2003-04-01 21:15:40

Re: The Future of the Solar System

#6 2003-04-01 21:35:49

Re: The Future of the Solar System

#7 2003-04-01 21:41:03

Re: The Future of the Solar System

#8 2003-04-01 22:02:13

Re: The Future of the Solar System

#9 2003-04-01 23:24:27

Re: The Future of the Solar System

#10 2003-04-02 01:43:32

Re: The Future of the Solar System

#11 2003-04-02 09:07:47

Re: The Future of the Solar System

#12 2003-04-02 09:43:52

Re: The Future of the Solar System

Board footer