Expectations vs. realties - Does one lead to the other?

Byron · 2002-11-21 09:03:58

I've decided to create a new thread based on what clark has posted under the "titles system" thread...

Mt main sticking point is taking into account the serious implications of the environment of Mars, The idea of living forever in the belly of the beast- a modern day Joanas; will in my opinion, be far outside many of our desired expectations.
Remember, imagine as it will be, not as we would have it.
Otherwise, I do agree with most of what you want or envision for a future mars- I am just less enthusiastic about expecting technology to become the creator of new worlds that you seem to envision in your posts.

What you've just said illustrates the key difference in the thinking of many of us here on this board and the way you typically look at things...the source of many a debate !)

While it's always prudent to look at the realistic side of the coin, I've often wondered about your intrinstic doubt of humankind's ability to create the worlds we imagine on Mars (or elsewhere), due to limitations of the environment, technology, etc.

The way I view the situation is based on observing past and current patterns of human existence here on Earth, in that people have a strong tendency to imagine something and they go about achieving it...and once they do achieve it, it's time to imagine something new, better, more fulfilling. Another aspect of human society that I've noticed and which I've always found quite interesting, is that the toughest environments have a tendency to produce the highest standards of living here on Earth. The northern countries of Europe and North America contrast sharply with the much poorer countries in the equatorial regions, although it's far "easier" to live in a place where food grows year-round, shelter/clothing is almost an afterthought, etc. Yet in places such as the northern U.S. and Canada, where the snow blows for up to six months a year and crops only grow during a fraction of the year...look how far those societies have come in just a couple hundred of years, as opposed to tribes in the jungle have haven't advanced a notch in thousands of years.

The reason for this is simple...if a group of people truly "have it easy," then there is no need to advance in a technological manner...you already have everything you need, why bust your butt to get more? In harsh climates, people were forced to develop technology, good farming practices, an economy capable of supporting people's various needs, etc...and this has led to the modern, technological society you find in most of the northern countries. This has become an imbedded 'instinct' in Western society...we are never 'happy' with what we have now...and we continue to work to acheive more...and I truly think this is the result of having to struggle for our existence in the early going...having to construct sturdy houses to keep out the cold and the wind, etc.

Now, if we extrapolate this line of thinking to Mars...its early settlers will have to work very, very hard just to survive there, possibly humankind's most difficult achievement. But once that primary objective is achieved, there is certainly no reason to think why the Martians would stop there. They would want the things that we dream up here on this board...lol...the clear domes, uber-sized canyon tents, and most likely, eventual terraformation of the entire planet. After all, the early settlers will have had to develop an astonishing level of technology and expertise just to get to first base on Mars...which would give then give them the tremendous leverage needed to create an increasingly comfortable lifestyle on Mars. Of course, there is no way to predict exactly how things would progress, and there would certainly be setbacks along the way. However, we have a tendency to not let our failures hold us back, and we keep moving foward in an endless cycle of progression.

You state: "Imagine how it will be, not as we would have it." Isn't the imagination the key tool that we have to achieve what we will have (want) in the future? Without the imagination, we go nowhere...with it, we can go anywhere. When we get somewhere, do we stop there? No, we just imagine new dreams, goals, objectives....and the cycle continues on.

Why you don't think this is a likely scenario on Mars is a bit puzzling to me at times...sure, when people first get to Mars, it'll be like living in a sub. That I have little doubt. Will it always be that way? I think not. As more people follow, trenches would be dug out and covered over, more sources of energy and resources would be developed, in turn attracting even more people and resources, which in turn would create habitats of increasing size and comfort, and so the cycle continues. At what point do you think this process would stop? At the trench stage? The small dome stage? Why is there any reason to think that the level of technology and the evironment would place an inmovable barrier to the creation of a full-fledged human civilization on Mars? Why should there be limitations at all..after all, have we hit any during the 10,000 years or so of recorded history (temporary setbacks notwithstanding) ?

Of course, there is no denying the great chasm between what we want and what we actually have. But we are constantly seeking a way to bridge that chasm. Always. We get what we want, and then we go find another chasm to leap over...and I really don't see how this paradigm would be an invalid one on Mars. After all, no matter where you go, there you are. People will still be people. I want my big, clear dome on Mars. So does just about everybody else. We will not rest until we have it, and yes, if we're there in the first place, we'd find a way somehow to achieve that, however difficult it is to imagine it from where we stand right here, right now in 2002.

B

clark · 2002-11-22 10:19:05

I agree in part, yet I might suggest that nothing has really changed in the patterns of human existence. Sure, people imagine a better world, then strive to reach it, yet they cannot escape the limitations of themselves, and the world.

We still have crime. We still have hate. We still have repression, exploitation, murder, deception, corruption, environmental degradation, starvation, fear, ignorance, disparity, lack of equality, lack of empowerment? the list remains unchanged. Yes, I will readily agree that some of these issues are better than they once were, but my point is that they still exist, they are still a part of our societies, and as far as I can see, will remain so.

The past demonstrates that "utopia" fails, and it is this utopia that many here create in their personal vision of Mars. I have no problem with that, but it is not for me- utopias will fail on mars just as they fail here on earth for the simple reason is that a utopia is based on a life as we would have it, not as it would truly be.

I have seen the wisdom in some of Josh's statements regarding the unknowable and undefined "human condition", yet I find that there are certain characteristics that are intrinsic to our being- jealousy, fear, desire, love- base emotions that drive us, makes us who we are- define who we perceive and how we are perceived. This is part of the missing equation that I see in other views of utopian mars. These are the aspects of humanity that we must contend with- it is us. Millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of social evolution has led to societal structures that can deal with these emotions in an organized manner effectively within the current environment. Yet what we must now contend with is a NEW environment with the same base emotions that drive us. We will need new concepts to deal with who we basically are so we can succeed on Mars. I point out the darker aspects of this realization to demonstrate that the challenge of Mars will not be for everyone, and more than likely, it will suit very, very few. This is not out of some spite, or a desire to push a preferred ideological standpoint, it is reasoning based on as much information as I have, and projecting development based on a linear progression. History is about linear progression- why should that ever change?

In regards to your statement about equatorial societies versus northern societies, I will have to say if I didn't know you better that you are a racist. I know you're not, but I think you may be oversimplifying the developmental disparity between the regions. However, I will agree with you that harsher climates require a greater deal of cooperation and social organization than is necessarily required in less hostile climates. This after all is a guiding principle for my vision of development of mars. Humans are a social animal because of evolution- together we can defeat threats which we cannot overcome alone- the last beast to tame is the environment, and it is only recently that we have gained a modicum of control- even now though, we still suffer the vagaries of weather and environment.

I also believe you are confusing our "instinct" to improve with the negative aspects and requirements of capitalism and consumerism. We need only as much as makes us happy, yet we have developed a dominating ideological philosophy in the west that more = happy, which is definitely not true. For thousands of years man did not progress in leaps and bounds, he progressed in tiny steps, one after the other- often stagnating at a point where enough was simply enough. The modern day experience with rapid change and progression at unimaginable speeds is new to the humanity, not a repeated tale.

Early Martians will not have to work hard in the same sense that our ancestors had to on Earth. They will have machines to build their environmentally controlled habitats. Each habitat renders the environment meaningless in terms of cold or hot, wet or dry- it is air conditioned with central heating. There are no season on Mars- everyday is 72 degrees- everyday is the same lighting level, there are no more cloudy days, or sunny days. There is no hurricane or tornado- no wolf or bear or lion- just animals for food. There is no riptide or threat except for the aspects of the environment beyond human influence or control. Vacuum, low g, radiation, meteors, lack of water, lack of power, failing machines, missed orbital insertions, solar flares, lack of abundance- these are the new environmental constraints that will guide and influence social development on Mars. It will be this reality that dictates successful ideology.

I am sure the future Martians would love to tent a canyon, or make bubbles on the surface, yet such desires will be constrained by technological limits, and practicality. Sure, we can build a tent over a canyon, but could we support it for 200 years? Is larger necessarily better in this situation, since as size increases, complexity increases, which creates more opportunity for failure- it begins to repeat some of the mistakes of Earth- bigger isn't necessarily better, or even desirable.

I will also agree that we can never truly predict what will happen in the future, but am trying to best figure out what is most likely to happen- we will become something new on Mars, but we will still be the same- does that make sense?

And yes, I do agree as well on the need for imagination- yet, imagination for imagination sake is little more than fantasy. I believed in the fantasy of Mars. Of freedom and liberty for all- of everyone having rovers and suits, traipsing all over a red planet made green by the hand of man alone. Yet it isn't realistic. I imagined Santa Claus with a workshop in the north pole, making toys for all the boys and girls of the world- yet if we break it down, and examine what would be required to make this imagination a reality, we find that it is unrealistic because it would require a workforce of a billion elves and the breakdown of several laws of physics. Kind of the same issue when looking at mars; the Martian experience is one of living in an enclosed environment, subject to your environment, yet removed from it at the same time- we in effect become rats in a self made cage.

The environment will always be the limiting factor as long as we are living in enclosed habitats. Terraformation will negate many of my points, but terraformation is 1,000 years out, and the society that develops will be one of a non-terraformed mar. It will be organized based on this living situation, not the expected one a thousand years from now.

Your post was quite lengthy, as is my reply, so please repeat any question I missed or you would like to explore further. I am finding this interesting.

Byron · 2002-11-23 08:17:31

I am finding this interesting

I suppose I should take this to mean that you're licking your chops? lol...

But I do appreciate your thoughtful reply to my lengthly post. Just a few points I want to clarify, expand upon, etc...

I will agree with you that the idea of creating a 'utopia' is a flawed one, as history so clearly demonstrates, and I also agree with you 100% about the frailities of 'human nature,' which makes life a challenge no matter where you go.

But despite all the 'negatives' that humans have, the things that lead to crime, war, inequality, etc...there is something else about people, which I think will apply to Mars even more than it has here on Earth, and that is spirit, hope, desire, or whatever name we chose to give to this quality.

We humans have an intrinsic desire to become more than what we are...beginning from the great pyramids in ancient Egypt to the aquaducts and highways of the Roman era to the soaring cathedrals of medieval Europe to the 747's and skyscrapers we have today. Of course, this hasn't always been the overriding principle of individual people...indeed, throughout history, the majority of people were merely content to have families and carry on with a modest lifestyle, i.e., having just enough shelter, food, clothing, etc to live a life without undue suffering. But there have always been individuals and groups of individuals, ranging up to whole nations and empires, who have sought to raise humankind to a higher level in an attempt to satisfy whatever goal they might have had at the time (becoming closer to God, achieving power and wealth, etc). Even as our values have changed, the efforts of some to achieve something *more* have more or less been with the human race since its inception...otherwise homo sapiens would have never gone from using sticks and rocks to hunt for food to placing a man on the Moon within a span of mere 1000's of years...which is but a blink of an eye in the larger scheme of things...

Yes, I cannot deny that people's desire to achieve 'more than they have' doesn't have negative conequences...just take a look at the damage that modern society has inflicted upon the environment, for example. But still we keep pushing for more, even if it goes against what is purely 'rational.' For example, why did those peasants in Medieval Europe dedicate their entire lives to a project that they wouldn't even see the end result of within their own lifetimes? Why did so many young Americans practically trip over themselves to sign up to fight in WWII, in spite of the grave risks they would face? Because these people wanted to be part of something more. Adventure. Glory. Making a 'mark' upon society. Or more simply, rising up to a challenge just for the sake of the challenge itself.

I see going to Mars as an extension to the 'achievements' of the past...except we won't be destroying the lives of indigenous people in our quest for "manifest destiny," or waging war in a distant land to propagate a certain way of life. Instead we will go to Mars just for the sake of going to Mars. Sure, I've come up with these schemes of how capitalists might set up base on Mars in the name of profit...lol...but several of you have pretty much convinced me that is simply not a realistic scenario. So, the whole idea of going to Mars is very much of an 'irrational' thing to start with...why else would people go a world where literally everything has to be artificially constructed in order for people to survive, let alone thrive on Mars? Whatever arguments people may put forth about why 'we should go to Mars' - it all comes down to this: Because it is there.

So...if and when people do go to Mars (assuming they go to set up house, so to speak)...yes, I will admit they will be limited by the environment, resources, and the technology at hand. But one thing they won't be limited by is practicality...after all, just being on Mars is about as far away from 'practicality' as you can get! People will be going to Mars to establish a human presence on a new world, and they will move mountians, if they have to, in order to replicate some semblance of life back home on Earth...'increasing complexity' and 'risk parameters' be dammed.

In order for humans to thrive on Mars, or even to merely exist over the long haul, we will have to do more than merely have a pressurized series of rooms under the regolith, where, like you say, the lighting is always the same, it's always 72 degrees, etc... Even if people have machines to perform the 'grunt' work for them, I certainly don't envision people just sitting around pining for the pleasures of the world they left behind...they'd be working 12 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, if necessary, to create a better home for themselves...beginning with putting up colorful wall murals in the habs to simulate the seasons, to creating solar lighting systems to bring the brightness of the day inside, to creating indoor 'parks' with lush foliage and mini-waterfalls, and so on, up to the construction of domes, tents, etc.

In summary, I honestly believe that if people do ever make it to Mars to establish themselves on the new frontier, they will do far more than to merely exist...indeed, they will likely achieve things on Mars that we can't even concieve of from our current perspective at this time.

I welcome any comments, questions, etc you might have for me...as I'm finding this rather "interesting" myself...

B

dicktice · 2002-11-24 19:34:19

With respect, not only "because it's there," but because we're only here, and we'd better be there as well, before it's tool ate!

clark · 2002-11-25 09:57:38

What has been the overriding theme and lesson of history in terms of maintaining social stability?

Democracy, socialism, the welfare state- these are all manifestations of improving the human condition in order to maintain a better social order that is not predicated on death or destruction.

How has this equilibrium been decided?

Enough social reforms have been instituted to make enough of a population content with a given amount of suffering; these social polices, redistribution of wealth schemes, or laws are all created to maintain a semblance of cohesion and acceptance of the status quo. This is not some rant on those in power, but a reflection upon the system developed over time to create the greatest peace for the most. However, even the social polices are limited- only enough reforms and guarantee's are established that are necessary to maintain social order.

Case in point, we develop homeless shelters and other safety nets to help those less fortunate- the idea being that if we help them, they are less likely to commit crimes against person or property. However, we also institute vagrancy laws to push these specific people into other areas. The poor and sick are helped, yet they are also pushed away. Since there is help for a majority of them, the rest of society can maintain a semblance of peace since the threat they represent to a social order (those without versus those with) are reduced in number.

We can do this because in order to effect any kind of change, larger numbers of individuals are needed.

This is not true on Mars. One person can lead to the death of everyone else.

One person's disenfranchisement with the social order can lead to the dissolution of the entire society due to the reality of living in space. This is what I continually point out in our discussions; this is the reality, which few seem to willingly want to tackle.

You can't have homeless people living on Mars, so there must be a solution and guarantee that all people are housed.

You can't have people starving on Mars, so food must be available to all.

Power is a requirement for life on Mars, so no one can be denied electricity.

Safety is always a concern, so everyone must have an available and functioning evac suit.

Water must be provided to all, it is necessary to live.

If at any time you allow for "charging" of basic necessities, you accept that there will be appoint where those without enough resources will be denied the basic necessities for life. Golconda would never work for the simple reason that eventually one person would gamble away their savings, become destitute and then be unable to afford the basic necessities required to survive on Mars. Now faced with a decision, death or crime of necessity, most rationale people choose crime. Crime leads to violence. Violence within an enclosed environment surrounded by vacuum can never be good.

Do you see?

This leads to the necessity of laws or regulations or a way of life where people are monitored more closely for the simple reason that one disenfranchised person can destroy all life. I have pointed out the issue of nuclear weapons on earth as a comparable example- those nations where one individual controls weapons of mass destruction are worrisome because their individual disenfranchisement can lead to anarchy, death or destruction- the same would be true for each individual on Mars- they are a loaded weapon.

Space colonization will be a community affair by necessity- I do not envision a tyranny, no- that would lead to the same disenfranchisement that I point out. If people are dissatisfied they often turn to destruction- to violence- riots, looting, lynch mobs- these are all manifestations of dissatisfaction with the status quo or certain particular events.

You agree that utopia is unachievable, but that is exactly what will be required for a colony on Mars to thrive. And the whole key to making a utopia work is to have management of most aspects of life.

If you have someone with an infectious disease, where do you put them?

I point this out, and the reality of it is more than apparent, but whatever an individual does, anything, if it affects another, or even the group, must be regulated by the group. This includes death rituals, births, complaints, crime, social welfare, etc- the reason is apparent- the environment on mars is unforgiving, and the conditions that mankind will be living in will be precarious at best.

Sure, you can have grand sweeping habitats filled with throngs of people- yet anyone of those individuals can bring the house of cards down. Destroy the power plant. Destroy the water reclamation unit- destroy the orbital insertion windows for mars to prevent aero capture.

You don't think people will be capable of this? You're mistaken, most seem to agree that mars will be filled with some rather bright individuals. Intelligent and disenfranchised is a dangerous mixture- it's like playing with nitro.

Capitalism in the way we know it is a dead end for space because of the disparity it produces in wealth and distribution of resources- it leads to social stratification and unless means are in place, eventual collapse of the social order as those without look to redistribute the wealth of those with.

We must fear those who have nothing for it they who have nothing to lose. That is the lesson of history- that is why America has had a relatively peaceful progression throughout it's history- we have been able to provide opportunity so everyone may have something- so they become invested in the social order- yet we still have dissatisfaction, disenfranchisement- we don't need to worry to much because the damage these individuals can do to the overall group, Society, is limited by the environmental reality- they do not have enough power to affect the many- however, all of this changes on Mars or in space.

Do you see it differently?

Byron · 2002-11-26 07:42:49

Good reply, clark...

I'm short on time this morning, so I'll have to keep this short and brief for now...

I fully agree with you clark, in that the current system of capitalism will not work in space, for the obvious reasons you have outlined. Things such as power, food, water, housing, medical care....all those will have to be 'givens"...and everybody within a Martian or space settlement would have to have equal access to those resources, or some very bad things would happen.

I guess what I'm attempting to get at in this discussion is that there will be a need to develop a wholly new "paradigm" of how people will organize their society. If capititalism is too dangerous, and socialism sucks out the "drive" in people...what would work instead?

You need a system in which everyone cooperates with each other, a society where nobody does anything that has an adverse impact upon others, and yet everyone has a strong desire to keep doing new and "better" things...as we all know, stagnation is a very bad thing for humans. If a Martian settlement is founded, and all they do is continue to live in underground rooms for decades on end, never growing, never bettering their lives, it doesn't take too much imagination to visualize what the end result of that settlement would be.

So, I guess we can both agree humans still have a long ways to go before a viable, ongoing settlement anywhere off-Earth will be achievable...but I do firmly believe that dreams and imagination will be the thing that will take us "over the mountian," so to speak...and that somehow, someway, people will be able to figure out how to live and thrive in space...

More later...

B

clark · 2002-11-29 10:04:18

Your assessment of a necessary new paradigm is expected, and I agree- and I believe I am outlining some of this "new paradigm".

It is based on security as a necessary component of living under Martian environmental constraints. Now, I am not envisioning a police state in the sense that we traditionally believe in- I expect a "police state" from OUR perspective, a terran one. Those who choose to live on Mars or in space will see the legitimacy and necessity of greater degrees of monitoring, of regulation, and limits on rights we hold as untouchable.

Case in point, The right to free speech. How can you exercise this right in a terran way on Mars when an entire habitat could be considered a "theater"? Or how about this example: You wish to travel freely and unencumbered by any state regulation or law. In the States we take it as a matter of course that we may move from one area to another, after all, who are we hurting? Yet we cannot have the same expectation on Mars or in space- to travel to another habitat is to place unavoidable demand upon that habitat, and the people of that habitat to support you. As a matter of course, to provide a system of stability and security, all travel would have to be cleared in advance- your "papers" will have to be in order- your permits must be in order just to move from one place to another. And everyone who has any sense will accept this as necessary and purposeful. Do we argue the sense in laws that punish jaywalking? Yet that is a limit on our freedom of movement, yet we would be hard pressed to argue against the legitimacy and necessity of such laws. The same will apply to Mars with the draconian (from a terran perspective) laws that would be in place.

And I will agree that imagination is a necessary component of hope and pushing us to a better future- however, dreams do not build castles in the sky. Reason does.

People can live and thrive in space today- however; it comes at a price. The human experience is created by a terran environment- that all changes once we are in a non-terran environment. We become other than what we once were.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-11-21 09:03:58

Re: Expectations vs. realties - Does one lead to the other?

#2 2002-11-22 10:19:05

Re: Expectations vs. realties - Does one lead to the other?

#3 2002-11-23 08:17:31

Re: Expectations vs. realties - Does one lead to the other?

#4 2002-11-24 19:34:19

Re: Expectations vs. realties - Does one lead to the other?

#5 2002-11-25 09:57:38

Re: Expectations vs. realties - Does one lead to the other?

#6 2002-11-26 07:42:49

Re: Expectations vs. realties - Does one lead to the other?

#7 2002-11-29 10:04:18

Re: Expectations vs. realties - Does one lead to the other?

Board footer