5 ms·

The combination of aging populations and automation slowly reducing the pool of careers even skilled workers have available is a vicious feedback loop. - You c

The combination of aging populations and automation slowly reducing the pool of careers even skilled workers have available is a vicious feedback loop. - You can import skilled labor, which if done in sufficient quantities drives down wages for the natives - You can import unskilled labor, for which there is less work, apart from perhaps taking care of old people. And once there's a Mars colony, I think there's a legit chance that a bunch of young skilled people will yeet themselves off this planet.

politelemon 6y ago
An appropriate initialism will be created to represent them in media. I'm thinking Young Emigrated Extra Terrestrials.
throwawayboise 6y ago
There isn't going to be a Mars colony of any impactful size for at least a century if ever.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  I’m not sure why the downvotes, for Mars to become anything more than say Antartica would require a fundamental shift in human society that isn’t likely to happen within 100 years. Technology needs to advance considerably more before a new gold rush that could give an opportunity to people and even then It would be probably only attractive and possible to a select few. It’s also a bit weird to think that somehow the “NEET” problem can be solved with that as if there are no more opportunities on this planet right now.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    We're not used to having frontiers any more. But a couple hundred years ago it was normal for families to yeet themselves off to another continent to start new lives. This trip could take months, in some cases years (some of the stories from early Australian colonisation are crazy). On arrival, the incomers were often left to their own devices in a hostile land. If we manage to get the transport costs to Mars down to the kind of level where selling your parent's house will pay for it, we can expect the same response - people will want to go there and start new lives.
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      And that would take at least a century, it’s not just transport costs it’s about what would there be to do. I think betting on Mars being anything more than a scientific outpost and possibly an automated mining station down the line at least for the next 100-150 years is highly unlikely. There is huge difference between us being able to put people on Mars with a 6-9 months journey and it becoming a new Australia or the American west. It’s also not just the cost of transport these will be marginal compared to the cost of literal life support there. Australia has and atmosphere and a biome hospitable to life (well hospitable by Australian standards at least...). People could sleep on the street if push comes to shove, they can claim their own land in the outback and build an emu farm or w/e.... you can’t do that on Mars without considerable resources. Sticking people on boats works on earth it’s not the same when it comes to Mars.
      - marcus_holmes 6y ago
        You can sleep in the bush, but early colonists had no idea what local plants were edible. Lots of them starved, died of thirst, drowned, were poisoned, burned to death in bushfires, etc. It was stupidly dangerous. Yeah, obviously, Mars is going to be more dangerous than (even!) Australia. But that's never stopped people before.

politelemon 6y ago

An appropriate initialism will be created to represent them in media. I'm thinking Young Emigrated Extra Terrestrials.

throwawayboise 6y ago

There isn't going to be a Mars colony of any impactful size for at least a century if ever.

dogma1138 6y ago
I’m not sure why the downvotes, for Mars to become anything more than say Antartica would require a fundamental shift in human society that isn’t likely to happen within 100 years. Technology needs to advance considerably more before a new gold rush that could give an opportunity to people and even then It would be probably only attractive and possible to a select few. It’s also a bit weird to think that somehow the “NEET” problem can be solved with that as if there are no more opportunities on this planet right now.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  We're not used to having frontiers any more. But a couple hundred years ago it was normal for families to yeet themselves off to another continent to start new lives. This trip could take months, in some cases years (some of the stories from early Australian colonisation are crazy). On arrival, the incomers were often left to their own devices in a hostile land. If we manage to get the transport costs to Mars down to the kind of level where selling your parent's house will pay for it, we can expect the same response - people will want to go there and start new lives.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    And that would take at least a century, it’s not just transport costs it’s about what would there be to do. I think betting on Mars being anything more than a scientific outpost and possibly an automated mining station down the line at least for the next 100-150 years is highly unlikely. There is huge difference between us being able to put people on Mars with a 6-9 months journey and it becoming a new Australia or the American west. It’s also not just the cost of transport these will be marginal compared to the cost of literal life support there. Australia has and atmosphere and a biome hospitable to life (well hospitable by Australian standards at least...). People could sleep on the street if push comes to shove, they can claim their own land in the outback and build an emu farm or w/e.... you can’t do that on Mars without considerable resources. Sticking people on boats works on earth it’s not the same when it comes to Mars.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      You can sleep in the bush, but early colonists had no idea what local plants were edible. Lots of them starved, died of thirst, drowned, were poisoned, burned to death in bushfires, etc. It was stupidly dangerous. Yeah, obviously, Mars is going to be more dangerous than (even!) Australia. But that's never stopped people before.