Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatWyrmGold]

I doubt that, but that's my own view of humans.

I'd argue, but I recognize this as the kind of statement that no logic will dislodge so I won't bother.

yes.
besides, who wants to live in a place where there are very few calling all the shots? in a smaller population there is more chance for democracy. or transparency. or anything else besides whats in the USA now.

Agreed. (Theoretically, we could have the population of the US vote on bills and such instead of Congress...not that that would ever happen, no way 2/3 of Congress would vote themselves out of a job.)

[mainiac]

Go live in Northern Alaska.  It's a much more habitable environment then mars and everyone will be happy to leave you alone.  If you live in a remote enough place you could plunk a few thousands in an annuity to cover all your taxes forever and the feds will be happy to leave you alone.  Get a handful of people to go with you.  There, you've made your alleged utopia and it cost you a few tens of thousand dollars instead of a few tens of billions.

It's nice that you have this whole social theory but social theories don't give return on investment for a colony and they don't pay to make the oxygen flow and the plants grow.

Or heck, find an unoccupied island in the pacific.  Nobody at all will ever bother you and you don't even need to pay taxes.  Go make your utopia there.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Go live in Northern Alaska.  It's a much more habitable environment then mars and everyone will be happy to leave you alone.  If you live in a remote enough place you could plunk a few thousands in an annuity to cover all your taxes forever and the feds will be happy to leave you alone.  Get a handful of people to go with you.  There, you've made your alleged utopia and it cost you a few tens of thousand dollars instead of a few tens of billions.

Utopia? No. More free from the sociopolitical concerns of Earth? Certainly.
Martian isolation makes it better, though, and besides...we can settle the Moon, and there's a lot less environmental consequences there, too.

It's nice that you have this whole social theory but social theories don't give return on investment for a colony and they don't pay to make the oxygen flow and the plants grow.

True...but with a minimum of maintenance, the plants provide the oxygen and labor keeps the plants healthy. You shouldn't even need to worry about any kind of disease ravaging the crops, unless your quarantine procedures suck.

Or heck, find an unoccupied island in the pacific.  Nobody at all will ever bother you and you don't even need to pay taxes.  Go make your utopia there.

Um...yeah, big consequences there. I doubt that there's any bit of land above water which is both A. unclaimed and B. able to be colonized enough to support a few thousand people without screwing up the local ecosystem.

[Aseaheru]

well, if you convince the army to let you there is Wake Atoll.
the Japanese fucked it up for us while we blockaded them.

[mainiac]

You may doubt there is unclaimed pacific islands but you would be quite wrong.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You may doubt there is unclaimed pacific islands but you would be quite wrong.

In order to fulfill the following statement:

any bit of land above water which is both A. unclaimed and B. able to be colonized enough to support a few thousand people without screwing up the local ecosystem.

The land would need to fit both A and B. Not either-or.

[mainiac]

Why a few thousand?  Your Rousseau-ish political beliefs would play out far better with a few dozen.

[PanH]

A colony on Mars would need to be of sufficient size to provide enough for everyone by the means of specialization by everyone. I don't think it's interesting to export t-shirts from earth. Which means it should be DF sized (and even bigger, with current living standarts), except that DF dwarves are very productive (or we would eat purple shrooms only).
There was a book by Verne (The mysterious Island), the story of 5 people on an uncharted island in Pacific. As most books of Verne, it's pretty accurate scientificly (for the time, ofc). They manage to do lots of things (explosives), but certain things can't be produced, like weapons, and, in fact, nearly anything that requires industrial precision.
I think the critical size for an autonomous settlement is actually pretty huge.

[10ebbor10]

Depends on the advancements in automatic production technologies, like 3D printing.

[Sheb]

GreatWyrmsGold, you are aware that you won't solve Earth's population problem with 2500 people on Mars? Because you said the reason to go on Mars was cheap real estates.

Also, why suddenly care about ecosystem? Just take over some shitty place, fuck the ecosystem and use your hydroponics. Still cheaper and safer than Mars because A) You don't need to worry about an athmosphere or cosmic ray and B) You don't need to go on Mars.

Or build a big, floating city and go in international water. Still cheaper than Mars.

Again, there is no point to go on Mars. The Moon might be cool to serve as an orbital shipyard (To process minerals from asteroid and build the bots), but that's it.

[mainiac]

Mars is actually a pretty bad shipyard since you'd need to use rockets to launch a large object like a ship from the surface.  The only use for mars I can think of is greenhouse (since it has CO2) or mining outpost.

Going of your idea though: Buy a luxury cruise liner.  Sail out into international waters with a few thousand people.  Declare yourself the party king.  Impractical as hell but still cheaper and more fun then mars.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Why a few thousand?  Your Rousseau-ish political beliefs would play out far better with a few dozen.

A few thousand is still very much workable, as well as being able to sustain a genetically diverse (ie, no incest) population with a complex social system (ie, a lower percentage of people needs to be focused on survival).

GreatWyrmsGold, you are aware that you won't solve Earth's population problem with 2500 people on Mars? Because you said the reason to go on Mars was cheap real estates.

I'm aware, but it's still nice to have a "backup" for if and when humanity kills itself.

Also, why suddenly care about ecosystem?

...I hate people like this. The environment matters because we matter, and if we screw up the biosphere we make it darn near impossible for us to survive, let alone maintain a halfway decent standard of living.

Just take over some shitty place, fuck the ecosystem and use your hydroponics. Still cheaper and safer than Mars because A) You don't need to worry about an athmosphere or cosmic ray and B) You don't need to go on Mars.
Or build a big, floating city and go in international water. Still cheaper than Mars.

The problem is, you're still subject to all Terran problems...and causing more, from the sounds of it. Another, less immediate problem is resource scarcity. Mars or Luna? Slap on your space suit and go make a mine (I know it's going to be a bit harder than this, but it'll still be possible once you run out of metal or whatever). Floating city? Isolated island? No can do.

Again, there is no point to go on Mars. The Moon might be cool to serve as an orbital shipyard (To process minerals from asteroid and build the bots), but that's it.

Other than the "only" caveat on Luna, I actually agree. Unless we're expecting to severely screw up Terra, Luna's far enough.

Going of your idea though: Buy a luxury cruise liner.  Sail out into international waters with a few thousand people.  Declare yourself the party king.  Impractical as hell but still cheaper and more fun then mars.

This might be splitting hairs a little, but a cruise ship has no chance of sustainable living for even a handful of people. I'm not sure if a couple thousand people could even fit on a cruise ship.

[Sheb]

What kind of catastrophe could destroy the whole planet, making it less survivable than Mars?

Actually, except for the Sun suddenly increasing its heat output (making Earth less livable and Mars more so), there is no point in settling Mars rather than the Sahara, or Alaska. There is simply nothing Mars got the Earth does not.

[GreatWyrmGold]

What kind of catastrophe could destroy the whole planet, making it less survivable than Mars?

Well, the nice thing about settling Mars (or Luna) is we can set up a nice, liveable colony on its surface before the catastrophe happens. It probably won't make Earth completely unliveable, but it's easy to see a catastrophe (global climate change, World War III, etc; pick your poison) which would devastate our modern infrastructure. Having a group of humans with modern technological capabilities would allow said capabilities to survive such a catastrophe.

Actually, except for the Sun suddenly increasing its heat output (making Earth less livable and Mars more so), there is no point in settling Mars rather than the Sahara, or Alaska. There is simply nothing Mars got the Earth does not.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Mars and Luna have perhaps the most important resource of all: Unclaimed land.

[miauw62]

And somewhat easier acces to helium 3, I guess.