5 ms·

The author's main argument seems to be that nobody will want to do it. But historically, there have been numerous cases of colonists giving up a safe, easy life

by NickM 11y ago

The author's main argument seems to be that nobody will want to do it. But historically, there have been numerous cases of colonists giving up a safe, easy life to go live somewhere inhospitable and dangerous. When I think about the first settlers that sailed across the Atlantic to colonize America, it seems amazing to me that people were willing to give up so much and endure such risks and hardships, but there have always been people that will go to great lengths to conquer new frontiers. I expect the first Martians will be no different in this respect.

carapat_virulat 11y ago
The difference is that pioneers in the past had been able to survive in boats for long periods of time for thousands of years. At the moment we aren't able to keep a self-sustained environment on the Earth orbit, which is relatively cheap to get to, or on the Moon, which is still on the Earth's gravity well and relatively cheat to arrive compared with Mars. So we aren't able to keep people alive in a lake at 100m from the shore without resupplying them every week, which means that sending somebody to the center of the ocean and expecting them to survive without any help for years is nowhere near our reach. Looking at the past we can think that all achievements just took brave people that tried, but actually those achievements took place on a confluence of many favorable material and social conditions.
rwc 11y ago
Seems like you're glossing over the whole religious persecution thing.
fluxquanta 11y ago
The difference between the "inhospitable" New World and Mars is that Mars is actually inhospitable.
yongjik 11y ago
No, settlers weren't willing to give up so much, those people went on to colonize America precisely because they had so little to lose. They were already enduring poverty, hardship, and (in many cases) discrimination to such a degree that crossing the ocean and starting a new life in an unknown land inhabited with hostile indigenous tribes seemed a good enough deal in comparison. In other words, imagine a developer in India who wants to move to SV but can't get a visa. Can he instead apply for a ship bound to Mars, and agree to work as an IT technician in lieu of paying for the trip (and all the food, water, and oxygen he will need in Mars)? Until that is economically feasible, colonization of Mars will not happen, at least not in the same way colonization of America happened.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  There's a bunch of people right now who are willing to risk death at sea to try to get from Syria to Europe. A fair number of them would probably accept a one-way ticket to Mars, even with the risk it involves.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - yongjik 11y ago
    It's the other side of the equation that's missing. Somebody has to be making money selling a one-way ticket to Mars to a desperate refugee. As for now, I doubt even Bill Gates' whole wealth could buy a single ticket to Mars.
rayiner 11y ago
Europeans explored the New World to find faster shipping routes for existing trade. And they colonized it because it had proven resources (gold, furs, etc). They didn't do it for the romanticized reasons you suggest. In contrast, exploring and colonizing Mars is only justified by romantic reasons.
dsfyu404ed 11y ago
The first martians will be religious fundamentalists/social conservatives who pool their last few dollars to buy transportation and initial supplies for settlement of mars due to economic and social persecution on earth? Other than economic ventures such as the Spanish stuff (pillaging) in south America and Jamestown (where the wasn't actually any gold, but "hey, tobacco grows pretty well") early colonization of the new world was basically driven by persecution. The inquisition or some local form thereof was present in pretty much all of western Europe at the time. England and other protestant areas were equally tolerant of anyone that didn't pray the way they did. Pooling your money to buy a one way ticket far as hell away and enough food to hopefully last the winter was a pretty good option. Possibly starving because you aren't a good farmer doesn't seem all that bad when a change of regime could mean that everyone in your community was at risk of imprisonment/death. At least you can kind of control whether or not you starve.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Driven by persecution - correlation and causation? Colonies were funded; people volunteered to go. The volunteers were often persecuted people looking for a new life. I'd say colonization was driven by money.
- ryandrake 11y ago
  No matter what religion you follow, there's at least one place closer than Mars (i.e. somewhere on Earth) where you won't be persecuted.
zzalpha 11y ago
When I think about the first settlers that sailed across the Atlantic to colonize America, it seems amazing to me that people were willing to give up so much and endure such risks and hardships, but there have always been people that will go to great lengths to conquer new frontiers. How romantic. And incorrect. Folks explored the new world for a very obvious reasons: Money. Land. Resources. Think spices. Gold. Slave labour. That's it. There's none of that on Mars.

by NickM 11y ago

carapat_virulat 11y ago

The difference is that pioneers in the past had been able to survive in boats for long periods of time for thousands of years. At the moment we aren't able to keep a self-sustained environment on the Earth orbit, which is relatively cheap to get to, or on the Moon, which is still on the Earth's gravity well and relatively cheat to arrive compared with Mars. So we aren't able to keep people alive in a lake at 100m from the shore without resupplying them every week, which means that sending somebody to the center of the ocean and expecting them to survive without any help for years is nowhere near our reach. Looking at the past we can think that all achievements just took brave people that tried, but actually those achievements took place on a confluence of many favorable material and social conditions.

rwc 11y ago

Seems like you're glossing over the whole religious persecution thing.

fluxquanta 11y ago

The difference between the "inhospitable" New World and Mars is that Mars is actually inhospitable.

yongjik 11y ago

No, settlers weren't willing to give up so much, those people went on to colonize America precisely because they had so little to lose. They were already enduring poverty, hardship, and (in many cases) discrimination to such a degree that crossing the ocean and starting a new life in an unknown land inhabited with hostile indigenous tribes seemed a good enough deal in comparison. In other words, imagine a developer in India who wants to move to SV but can't get a visa. Can he instead apply for a ship bound to Mars, and agree to work as an IT technician in lieu of paying for the trip (and all the food, water, and oxygen he will need in Mars)? Until that is economically feasible, colonization of Mars will not happen, at least not in the same way colonization of America happened.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
There's a bunch of people right now who are willing to risk death at sea to try to get from Syria to Europe. A fair number of them would probably accept a one-way ticket to Mars, even with the risk it involves.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- yongjik 11y ago
  It's the other side of the equation that's missing. Somebody has to be making money selling a one-way ticket to Mars to a desperate refugee. As for now, I doubt even Bill Gates' whole wealth could buy a single ticket to Mars.

rayiner 11y ago

Europeans explored the New World to find faster shipping routes for existing trade. And they colonized it because it had proven resources (gold, furs, etc). They didn't do it for the romanticized reasons you suggest. In contrast, exploring and colonizing Mars is only justified by romantic reasons.

dsfyu404ed 11y ago

The first martians will be religious fundamentalists/social conservatives who pool their last few dollars to buy transportation and initial supplies for settlement of mars due to economic and social persecution on earth? Other than economic ventures such as the Spanish stuff (pillaging) in south America and Jamestown (where the wasn't actually any gold, but "hey, tobacco grows pretty well") early colonization of the new world was basically driven by persecution. The inquisition or some local form thereof was present in pretty much all of western Europe at the time. England and other protestant areas were equally tolerant of anyone that didn't pray the way they did. Pooling your money to buy a one way ticket far as hell away and enough food to hopefully last the winter was a pretty good option. Possibly starving because you aren't a good farmer doesn't seem all that bad when a change of regime could mean that everyone in your community was at risk of imprisonment/death. At least you can kind of control whether or not you starve.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Driven by persecution - correlation and causation? Colonies were funded; people volunteered to go. The volunteers were often persecuted people looking for a new life. I'd say colonization was driven by money.
ryandrake 11y ago
No matter what religion you follow, there's at least one place closer than Mars (i.e. somewhere on Earth) where you won't be persecuted.

zzalpha 11y ago

When I think about the first settlers that sailed across the Atlantic to colonize America, it seems amazing to me that people were willing to give up so much and endure such risks and hardships, but there have always been people that will go to great lengths to conquer new frontiers. How romantic. And incorrect. Folks explored the new world for a very obvious reasons: Money. Land. Resources. Think spices. Gold. Slave labour. That's it. There's none of that on Mars.