Human Settlement on Mars

[which doctor]

Imagine living life on the red planet. It would be cool wouldn't it.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/19/r...c.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/19/red.planet.inc.ap/index.html)

[STI]

Man, it would fucking rock. Once we start colonizing space and other planets, we'll get to stop caring about the environment and start an unrestricted exploitation of Earth's resources.

The Good times are coming back again.

[Xvall]

I'd be fun, but don't hold your breath.

[which doctor]

Well technically we could keep going on and exploiting planets and wasting their resources because there are infinitely more just like the last one. But thats not how I want to live my existance here on our beautiful planet we call earth.

[More Fire for the People]

The problem of space exploration in present day society is that the pragmatism of the private companies is hampered by costs and the national programs are ineffective, propagandic, and overlycostly.

The best method for space exploration under socialism is the nationalization of all the private companies dealing with space and centralization under the adminstration under scientist, not politicians.

[Master Che]

Space exploration would be great we'd no longer need to worry about overpopulation.

[Xvall]

Yes, we would. Population has never been a problem of space or area, it is the problem of having the necessary resources to maintain the population. Unless this space exploration is going to yield crops/meats/commodities/etc in large quantities, it will not solve the overpopulation problem.

[Leif]

I believe that we should fix the problems of starvation, illiteracy, and general oppression on earth before we spread to the stars, because if we don't fix these things here and now they will spread like a cancer amung the colonised galaxy.

[FleasTheLemur]

Communists could always colonize Mars and brake all ties from Earth. I don't see that happening in 20 years though. 75 years? Maybe.

[Clutch]

Fuck that, it'd be like Alice Springs without oxygen.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:18 AM
Communists could always colonize Mars and brake all ties from Earth. I don't see that happening in 20 years though. 75 years? Maybe.
if they had the power to colonize then they'll definatly have the power to crush a rebelion on a planet i mean they can pin point targets now so whats stopping them in 75 years to pin point targets from orbit? there'd be carnage.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Space colonisation would be a boon for breakaway movements - Iain M Banks said it better than me,
in his essay A Few Notes On The Culture:


The thought processes of a tribe, a clan, a country or a nation-state are essentially two-dimensional, and the nature of their power depends on the same flatness. Territory is all-important; resources, living-space, lines of communication; all are determined by the nature of the plane (that the plane is in fact a sphere is irrelevant here); that surface, and the fact the species concerned are bound to it during their evolution, determines the mind-set of a ground-living species. The mind-set of an aquatic or avian species is, of course, rather different.

Essentially, the contention is that our currently dominant power systems cannot long survive in space; beyond a certain technological level a degree of anarchy is arguably inevitable and anyway preferable.

To survive in space, ships/habitats must be self-sufficient, or very nearly so; the hold of the state (or the corporation) over them therefore becomes tenuous if the desires of the inhabitants conflict significantly with the requirements of the controlling body. On a planet, enclaves can be surrounded, besieged, attacked; the superior forces of a state or corporation - hereafter referred to as hegemonies - will tend to prevail. In space, a break-away movement will be far more difficult to control, especially if significant parts of it are based on ships or mobile habitats. The hostile nature of the vacuum and the technological complexity of life support mechanisms will make such systems vulnerable to outright attack, but that, of course, would risk the total destruction of the ship/habitat, so denying its future economic contribution to whatever entity was attempting to control it.

Outright destruction of rebellious ships or habitats - pour encouragez les autres - of course remains an option for the controlling power, but all the usual rules of uprising realpolitik still apply, especially that concerning the peculiar dialectic of dissent which - simply stated - dictates that in all but the most dedicatedly repressive hegemonies, if in a sizable population there are one hundred rebels, all of whom are then rounded up and killed, the number of rebels present at the end of the day is not zero, and not even one hundred, but two hundred or three hundred or more; an equation based on human nature which seems often to baffle the military and political mind. Rebellion, then (once space-going and space-living become commonplace), becomes easier than it might be on the surface of a planet.

This means that a worker's uprising on a Martian colony, for instance, has more chance of success than a similar one on Earth.

[Xvall]

Very nice excerpt. What kind of book is it? (As in what's it mostly about, etc.)

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:55 PM
I believe that we should fix the problems of starvation, illiteracy, and general oppression on earth before we spread to the stars, because if we don't fix these things here and now they will spread like a cancer amung the colonised galaxy.
You and every pseudo-socialist.

You do realize the machine you're using right now was developed for the space program? How about ballpoint pens? Medical equipment?

[Xvall]

We know all of that, and while that may be an argue for the usefullness of the space program, it isn't really an argument for the prioritization of the space program.

[More Fire for the People]

Yes, the space program shouldn't come before exterminating poverty but to say we can't do both at once is to degrade humanity. I mean for Christ's sake, imagine what NASA could do with a $40 billion dollar budget and the pragmatism of Burt Rutan!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Very nice excerpt. What kind of book is it? (As in what's it mostly about, etc.)

The full essay is available HERE (http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~stefan/culture.html). It's mainly a sort of introductory piece to a series of sci-fi books about an anarchistic society called The Culture.
In fact, I think I'll add it to my sig.


Yes, the space program shouldn't come before exterminating poverty but to say we can't do both at once is to degrade humanity. I mean for Christ's sake, imagine what NASA could do with a $40 billion dollar budget and the pragmatism of Burt Rutan!

You know, theoretically the US military budget could provide the funding needed for modernisation of the thrid world and breathe new life into NASA.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 1 2005, 11:50 PM
Yes, the space program shouldn't come before exterminating poverty but to say we can't do both at once is to degrade humanity. I mean for Christ's sake, imagine what NASA could do with a $40 billion dollar budget and the pragmatism of Burt Rutan!
Well, we can't really expect NASA to do much humanitarian work because that isn't their job.

[sovietx17]

We were supposed to be wearing aluminum foil and drivng flying cars 5 years ago too. I'm a little skeptical.

[TC]

If there was a Mars colony it would:

A. Be American.

B. Be run by NASA and/or the American military.

C. Be increadibly boring especially when compared to all of the interesting things to see on earth.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A. Be American.

What's wrong with being American?


B. Be run by NASA and/or the American military.

Oh, you mean the sort of people with experience in these matters?


C. Be increadibly boring especially when compared to all of the interesting things to see on earth.

It's a scientific installation, not a fucking cineplex.
Boring != useless. Maths is a boring subject for many, that doesn't decrease it's importance.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:49 PM
Man, it would fucking rock. Once we start colonizing space and other planets, we'll get to stop caring about the environment and start an unrestricted exploitation of Earth's resources.

The Good times are coming back again.
Is that a joke?

[TC]

.......no TAT that sounded 100% serious and unsarcastic to me ;-)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 7 2005, 04:24 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 7 2005, 04:24 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 10:49 PM
Man, it would fucking rock. Once we start colonizing space and other planets, we'll get to stop caring about the environment and start an unrestricted exploitation of Earth's resources.

The Good times are coming back again.
Is that a joke? [/b]
Hell why not? one we gain a foothold in space there's no real reason to "preserve resources" particularly with regard to metals and minerals.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by NoXion+Oct 7 2005, 05:56 PM--> (NoXion @ Oct 7 2005, 05:56 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 7 2005, 04:24 PM

[email protected] 30 2005, 10:49 PM
Man, it would fucking rock. Once we start colonizing space and other planets, we'll get to stop caring about the environment and start an unrestricted exploitation of Earth's resources.

The Good times are coming back again.
Is that a joke?
Hell why not? one we gain a foothold in space there's no real reason to "preserve resources" particularly with regard to metals and minerals. [/b]
Because the Earth is an incredibly beautiful place and I don't want it to be destroyed because of our greed. The world exists apart from us and shouldn't have to be destroyed because of our existance.

What a grotesque view to have.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Beauty is subjective. The benefits of resource exploitation aren't.

[barret]

Originally posted by NoXion+Oct 7 2005, 12:56 PM--> (NoXion @ Oct 7 2005, 12:56 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 7 2005, 04:24 PM

[email protected] 30 2005, 10:49 PM
Man, it would fucking rock. Once we start colonizing space and other planets, we'll get to stop caring about the environment and start an unrestricted exploitation of Earth's resources.

The Good times are coming back again.
Is that a joke?
Hell why not? one we gain a foothold in space there's no real reason to "preserve resources" particularly with regard to metals and minerals. [/b]
You do realize that not everyone is going to be able to/ want to leave Earth right? Just because we are finnaly getting people on other planets doesn't just mean that we can fuck the previous one over. If anything, since getting people to Mars and other planets would be very costly and tough to devolop, we should try to create a system of sharing resources between the planets.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 08:49 PM
Beauty is subjective. The benefits of resource exploitation aren't.
So? What's your point?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Look at it this way, what would hurt us more, lack of Monarch butterflies or a lack of iron ore?


You do realize that not everyone is going to be able to/ want to leave Earth right? Just because we are finnaly getting people on other planets doesn't just mean that we can fuck the previous one over. If anything, since getting people to Mars and other planets would be very costly and tough to devolop, we should try to create a system of sharing resources between the planets.

That's why I said when we get a foothold in space rather than the fingernailhold we currently possess. Letting ourselves go at this time would be unwise.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:16 PM
Look at it this way, what would hurt us more, lack of Monarch butterflies or a lack of iron ore?
The monarch butterfly?...Are you serious?

Yes, iron ore is useful to human beings, but that does not mean we can destroy our habitat just to have it. What is the point in survival if we destroy everything in the process? Human beings need to do less destruction, not more.

If there was a choice between saving something like the amazon rainforest and having iron ore, I would choose the rainforest everytime, and I would put a bullet in the back of the head of any person who attempted otherwise.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, iron ore is useful to human beings, but that does not mean we can destroy our habitat just to have it. What is the point in survival if we destroy everything in the process? Human beings need to do less destruction, not more.

If we destroy everything, we won't survive, so your argument is a little pointless. I'm talking about maximising use of resources on Earth, which might cause the occasional species to go extinct, and you're talking widespread destruction, which is in fact antithetical to what we're trying to achieve.


If there was a choice between saving something like the amazon rainforest and having iron ore, I would choose the rainforest everytime, and I would put a bullet in the back of the head of any person who attempted otherwise.

It's a pity the poor schlubs without iron won't be able to make guns.

[Xvall]

I used to have a very nature-friendly attitude, but I'm begining to feel like nature is a backstabbing son of a ***** that will kill us if it gets the chance. I don't know. I still like the earth to look nice and green, but even so it's just because I like it looking that way, and not because I have any romantic ideas about the sacredness of... well.. anything.

To me it seems like the humans have escaped nature and are no longer a part of it - kind of like an alien species spreading over the planet or some form of relentless cancer. Although I can't say I condone the humans stripping the earth of all it's resources, I don't entirely blame them.

[barret]

That's why I said when we get a foothold in space rather than the fingernailhold we currently possess. Letting ourselves go at this time would be unwise.
Even if we had permanent settlements on other planets, would we still want to destroy another planet?


I used to have a very nature-friendly attitude, but I'm begining to feel like nature is a backstabbing son of a ***** that will kill us if it gets the chance.

I don't know how you could ever come to this conclusion. Its not like nature has any sort of brain, conscience, or control. If anything, it would be humans to blame for their own misfortunes, which isn't a plausible reason to blame the environent for anything.

[Xvall]

No, of course nature has no sentience (I'm some some people here think it might, though), and can't maliciously act against us. But nature is INDIFFERENT to us and the natural elements will kill us if we do not take steps to avoid it. (This is why we live in houses.)

[LSD]

If there was a choice between saving something like the amazon rainforest and having iron ore, I would choose the rainforest everytime, and I would put a bullet in the back of the head of any person who attempted otherwise.

I'll explain that to the hundreds of millions of people who would die without iron ore. That you "put a bullet" in the people trying to save their lives.

Honestly, what nonsense!

The rain forrest is important and should be preserved. It serves many purposes on this planet and by all indications could yield many important discoveries in the future, but if there was a choice between keeping the rain forrest and having access to metal resources.... well, there is no choice.

Humanity needs to prioritize humanity. If that means exterminating species to keep ourselves alive, so be it.

Luckily, of course, that isn't the case. Right now we can have both; we can have the rain forrest and we can have metals. But don't even wonder for a momment, if it came down to it, which matters more.

It's as obvious as the copper wiring lighting your home.

[Latifa]

So human life didn't exist before the iron age :lol:

Christ, use your fucking brain. We don't NEED iron to live, we just find it useful.

[Xvall]

What the hell does the rainforest have to do with iron ore anyways?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2005, 06:17 AM

If there was a choice between saving something like the amazon rainforest and having iron ore, I would choose the rainforest everytime, and I would put a bullet in the back of the head of any person who attempted otherwise.

I'll explain that to the hundreds of millions of people who would die without iron ore. That you "put a bullet" in the people trying to save their lives.

Honestly, what nonsense!

The rain forrest is important and should be preserved. It serves many purposes on this planet and by all indications could yield many important discoveries in the future, but if there was a choice between keeping the rain forrest and having access to metal resources.... well, there is no choice.

Humanity needs to prioritize humanity. If that means exterminating species to keep ourselves alive, so be it.
People will die anyway. It's inevitable. People should just recognise that fact instead of destroying the planet in some vague attempt to live a few extra years.

So let me ask you this. In a post revolutionary society how would you deal with the fact that a primitive tribe may be living on the land you want to mine for iron ore and have done for hundreds if not thousands of years? That's precisely what is happening right now in Indonesia. Primitive tribes are being forced of the land they have lived on for centuries and killed if necessary, just so that they can mine the natural resources. Do you support the corporations and military forces that are doing this?

At what point do we draw the line on our desperate efforts to maintain our existence? Do we sacrifice the principles of revolution? Do you ignore the beliefs that you apparently have just so you can get that last little bit of iron ore?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:29 AM
If we destroy everything, we won't survive, so your argument is a little pointless. I'm talking about maximising use of resources on Earth, which might cause the occasional species to go extinct, and you're talking widespread destruction, which is in fact antithetical to what we're trying to achieve.
You forget so easily.

You agreed with this, which is what I was responding to:


Once we start colonizing space and other planets, we'll get to stop caring about the environment and start an unrestricted exploitation of Earth's resources.

You said you agreed with it, have you changed your position now?

[LSD]

People will die anyway. It's inevitable.

Of course they will. But does that mean that we shouldn't try and keep as many of them live for as long as possible?

Isn't that the cornerstone of medicine?


People should just recognise that fact instead of destroying the planet in some vague attempt to live a few extra years.

Hyperbole about "destroying the planet" aside, why?

Obvously "destroying the planet" will harm us (since we live on it) and hence is coutnerproductive, but we're not talking about the planet, we're talking about the environment on it.

And if harming part of that environment helped us live long and did not do us harm, then I am all for harming it.


So let me ask you this. In a post revolutionary society how would you deal with the fact that a primitive tribe may be living on the land you want to mine for iron ore and have done for hundreds if not thousands of years?

Well, now we're back to human life and human existence which human society has an obligation to protect.

That's different from talking about non-human life and "nature" as an abstract.

Obviously, I would not support the above hypothetical, but that's not what we're talking about! We're talking about a situation in which the "exploitation" of the enviornment did no harm to humanity. It is in that case and that case alone that I support it.


That's precisely what is happening right now in Indonesia. Primitive tribes are being forced of the land they have lived on for centuries and killed if necessary, just so that they can mine the natural resources.

Yes, that's called capitalism.


Do you support the corporations and military forces that are doing this?

No.


At what point do we draw the line on our desperate efforts to maintain our existence?

When it harms humanity ...obviously.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 8 2005, 09:03 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 8 2005, 09:03 AM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 12:29 AM
If we destroy everything, we won't survive, so your argument is a little pointless. I'm talking about maximising use of resources on Earth, which might cause the occasional species to go extinct, and you're talking widespread destruction, which is in fact antithetical to what we're trying to achieve.
You forget so easily.

You agreed with this, which is what I was responding to:


Once we start colonizing space and other planets, we'll get to stop caring about the environment and start an unrestricted exploitation of Earth's resources.

You said you agreed with it, have you changed your position now? [/b]
Unrestricted exploitation is not the same as destroying the Earth's biosphere.

As soon as it becomes a simple matter of nudging an asteroid into Earth's orbit to get a an arseload of nickel, iron, magnesium, CO2 and water ice, we don't have to worry about running out of similar resources on Earth. There are significant titanium deposits on the Moon and we should exploit those too.

In fact, if we have the majority of our heavy industry relocated in orbit, it will reduce pollution on Earth significantly. Waste materials could simply be boosted into the Sun or empty space.

[The Feral Underclass]

Thank you for the clarification.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 04:17 PM
I'd be fun, but don't hold your breath.
Or better yet, do hold your breath. For dear life, 'cause there ain't gonna be any air on Mars anytime soon.

Y'all want a more realistic vision of space colonization? Here it is:

The highest elite live in space habitants orbiting earth. They extract tribute from the peons living on the surface - by threatening to drop rocks on us.

(That may be how the people in space became the elite. Maybe they started out as the military force intended to enforce the will of a ground-based elite, but it's hard to keep such an overwhelming military advantage from breaking free of other constraints.)

All food production takes place on Earth, of course, as its the only life-sustaining planet. Most everything can be produced more economically on Earth, where you don't have to worry about where your next breath is coming from.

But space habitats will be sustained by their military advantages....just as military applications drive the space program now.

As you might guess from this post, I read and like science fiction. But I remember that it's fiction.

The whole dream of space exploration is basically "white flight" writ large. The hope of running away from social problems, rather than solving them. Fortunately, there are major technical obstacles in the way of the scenario I've described.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The highest elite live in space habitants orbiting earth. They extract tribute from the peons living on the surface - by threatening to drop rocks on us.

That would be counterproductive. They drop rocks, they starve.


All food production takes place on Earth, of course, as its the only life-sustaining planet. Most everything can be produced more economically on Earth, where you don't have to worry about where your next breath is coming from.

All the more reason why the people who live in orbit shouldn't piss off those who live and work dirtside.


The whole dream of space exploration is basically "white flight" writ large. The hope of running away from social problems, rather than solving them.

Expanding our horizons and making access to living space easier is not running away from the problem.

[Xvall]

But does that mean that we shouldn't try and keep as many of them live for as long as possible?

Just curious, why? (As in, why do we want people to live for as long as they possibly can?)

[LSD]

why do we want people to live for as long as they possibly can?

We want them to be able to life for as long as they want to.

Practically, that means allowing them to live as long as possible and affording them the sovereign freedom to terminate that life should they see fit but not allowing external forces to make the decision.

Society exists to bennefit it s members and they bennefit from being able to have greater control of, and be happier with, their lives.

[Xvall]

Ok. It was the "as long as possible" that threw me off.