3 ms·

Well, it's "a just technically very hard one" right now. Because, we could, technically, just send fertilizer, and soil, from Earth. The question I am asking i

Well, it's "a just technically very hard one" right now. Because, we could, technically, just send fertilizer, and soil, from Earth. The question I am asking isn't "is it possible". The question I am asking is "is it worth it". I see a lot of comparisons with Columbus, colonising America and the first Lunar landing flying around in such discussions. Well, all of these, and in fact most grand far-fetched undertakings of mankind, as un-romantic as that may sound, were the result of a cost-benefit analysis; Columbus expected to find a valueable trade-route. Colonising America promised resources, taxes and geopolitical power. Landing on the Moon showed off who got the biggest most badass rockets to a geostrategic opponent in the middle of a cold war centered around, well, rockets. There is a reason no man has been on the moon since the 70s. Trying to colonise Mars promises...what exactly?

nine_k 3y ago
Colonizing Mars for real (that is, building a self-sustained habitat there) is a way to create a habitat not controlled by any Earth government. That's the only potential upside I see in the short term, an upside for those who care about such things and are ready to pay an immense price for it. Something that a bunch of eccentric libertarian-leaning billionaires might do. (Oh wait.) Large and unconventional religious movements could be interested, too, like Puritans of old, but much more well-funded and determined.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > is a way to create a habitat not controlled by any Earth government. Yeah, a few tiny problems with that assumption: a) Earth goverments can easily shut down launches from Earth. Since any Mars Base would be dependent on resupply for probably a very long time, that effectively gives them control. b) Establishing a Mars Base doesn't work without government support to begin with, so they have their hands in from the start. And even if they didn't, being ruled by a corporation or billionaire overlord instead of a government would be a prime example of "Out of the frying pan - into the fire". c) In a bid for Braveheart-Style "Freeeedoooooom!", Mars colony has no leverage over Earth. Zero. There is no Unobtainium on Mars. d) Any ungoverned, larger group of humans, left to its own devices, will eventually form some kind of government, if only out of the need for self-organisation. Proof: The entirety of history. Regarding d); Now, our Earth governments may not be ideal solutions. And yes, maaaaybe Mars Gov. will be an ideal utopia. I kinda doubt it. Because that group would be under constant psychological pressure from several life-threatening dangers, where one mistake by one person could kill everyone. They live in a planet-sized dead wasteland, with very limited resources. They are locked in crowded habitats for most of the time. Their lifespan is likley cut short by radiation damage and low-gravity related physiological deterioration. Now, I am not a psychologist, nor a political scientist. But under such conditions, I imagine the outcome of any government-formation-process to be...unpleasant.
  - nine_k 3y ago
    Boston was founded in 1615, and the US declared independence in 1776. A colony will depend on the mother country / planet for quite some time, but has a chance to become materially independent in 150+ years, too. I'm not saying that this desire is rational, or that the result would be a libertarian utopia, etc. But "all progress depends on the unreasonable man", as history also shows time and time again.
    - usrbinbash 3y ago
      > A colony will depend on the mother country / planet for quite some time, but has a chance to become materially independent in 150+ years Boston was founded in a breathable atmosphere and a livable climate, in a land that contains building materials, wildlife, liquid water, and arable soil, all shielded from cosmic radiation by Earths magnetic field and in a gravity well our physiology has evolved to cope with. Yes, life for the colonists was hardship and back-breaking work, but the basic building blocks for survival existed. Which of these blocks are present on Mars?

nine_k 3y ago

Colonizing Mars for real (that is, building a self-sustained habitat there) is a way to create a habitat not controlled by any Earth government. That's the only potential upside I see in the short term, an upside for those who care about such things and are ready to pay an immense price for it. Something that a bunch of eccentric libertarian-leaning billionaires might do. (Oh wait.) Large and unconventional religious movements could be interested, too, like Puritans of old, but much more well-funded and determined.

usrbinbash 3y ago
> is a way to create a habitat not controlled by any Earth government. Yeah, a few tiny problems with that assumption: a) Earth goverments can easily shut down launches from Earth. Since any Mars Base would be dependent on resupply for probably a very long time, that effectively gives them control. b) Establishing a Mars Base doesn't work without government support to begin with, so they have their hands in from the start. And even if they didn't, being ruled by a corporation or billionaire overlord instead of a government would be a prime example of "Out of the frying pan - into the fire". c) In a bid for Braveheart-Style "Freeeedoooooom!", Mars colony has no leverage over Earth. Zero. There is no Unobtainium on Mars. d) Any ungoverned, larger group of humans, left to its own devices, will eventually form some kind of government, if only out of the need for self-organisation. Proof: The entirety of history. Regarding d); Now, our Earth governments may not be ideal solutions. And yes, maaaaybe Mars Gov. will be an ideal utopia. I kinda doubt it. Because that group would be under constant psychological pressure from several life-threatening dangers, where one mistake by one person could kill everyone. They live in a planet-sized dead wasteland, with very limited resources. They are locked in crowded habitats for most of the time. Their lifespan is likley cut short by radiation damage and low-gravity related physiological deterioration. Now, I am not a psychologist, nor a political scientist. But under such conditions, I imagine the outcome of any government-formation-process to be...unpleasant.
- nine_k 3y ago
  Boston was founded in 1615, and the US declared independence in 1776. A colony will depend on the mother country / planet for quite some time, but has a chance to become materially independent in 150+ years, too. I'm not saying that this desire is rational, or that the result would be a libertarian utopia, etc. But "all progress depends on the unreasonable man", as history also shows time and time again.
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    > A colony will depend on the mother country / planet for quite some time, but has a chance to become materially independent in 150+ years Boston was founded in a breathable atmosphere and a livable climate, in a land that contains building materials, wildlife, liquid water, and arable soil, all shielded from cosmic radiation by Earths magnetic field and in a gravity well our physiology has evolved to cope with. Yes, life for the colonists was hardship and back-breaking work, but the basic building blocks for survival existed. Which of these blocks are present on Mars?