Politics and Martian Colonies

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

willpittenger

Guest
Kim Stanley Robinson likes to have as a theme in his books Earth as an overbearing government dealing in a uncaring manner with residents of Mars and the outer solar system. Same thing with Babylon 5. How do we prevent that?<br /><br />One problem in Robinson's <i>Red Mars</i>/<i>Green Mars</i>/<i>Blue Mars</i> trilogy was the "mega-corporations". We already have some companies capable of demanding terms from governments. Witness the fight between localities of how many tax incentives and other items paid for by the government they can offer those who build a new plant. Now some are even trying to do the same with major nations like the US. This is taking form in the continual movement of jobs.<br /><br />In Robinson's trilogy, mega-corporations could demand terms from the UN. When the residents of Mars got in the way of the corporations (which were mining Mars), they died. Entire cities were wiped out and the "investigation" was quick and blamed a convenient "accident." The problem was then shelved and ignored.<br /><br />As I see it, it will be quite some time from when the first Martian Colony is formed and we can quickly get people back and forth. Communications may be faster, but in all other regards, it will be like England attempting to govern 13 colonies in America. Will we be able to govern justly and fairly from such a distance? Or will we be just as unfair as the British? As I understand it, the British had all the best intentions. They just failed to listen and paid dearly for that.<br /><br />We must find a way to learn from history and not make the same mistake. Those that fail to learn from history... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
B

bpfeifer

Guest
I believe you are correct that when the first colonies are established, transit between the colonies and Earth will still be slow and expensive. However, the most important link for effective government is communication, and that will still be reletively quick. <br /><br />The former British colonies suffered from a communications lag the same langth as the time it took for a person to travel the distance between the colony and England. For Martian colonists, it will still be convenient to send and recieve multiple emails a day. While real-time voice will be impractical on most occasions, it's still close enough to have a writteen conversation that is still timely for governing.<br /><br />If there is a failure of governing betweeen Human colonies on other bodies and their sponsors on Earth, it will not be because of something as simple as the distance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
It's my opinion that it is better to do without regulation if you can, but if the bullies won't behave, tough. They had their chance.<br /><br />As a Methodist Christian, I was taught to do what I want others to do for me. Suppose I ran a software company (for the example, assume Microsoft in the late 1980s). I see Word Perfect and Lotus in trouble. I offer them (and anti-monopoly regulators) a deal. I would buy and run the companies. But instead of folding them into Microsoft and layoffs, I would fix them up. If needed, selected Microsoft rights might be at least licensed to the other companies for free for 10 years or even outright coownership of those rights. Once I had the companies working on all cylinders again and have recovered my initial investment, I would IPO them back to the public. The IPO proceeds would be icing on the cake for me.<br /><br />It's strange. But competition is good for a business -- large or small. If you don't believe me, ask GM, Chrysler, Ford, Harley Davidson, and Xerox why the Japanese were so effective in storming our shores with competitive products. It was because none of those companies had competitive products. Each had become stale. Harleys leaked oil like a sieve. None the less, you were supposed to enjoy. Supposedly, Americans would buy the products for sale -- because they were for sale.<br /><br />In 1979, Apple was on top of the computer industry. However, instead of selling the OS, they sold the computer. When they decided to move up market with the Apple III, Lisa, and Macintosh; their existing customer base said "We can't afford the new model. See you." Consumers were left the with the choice of slow computers, fast computers for the same price, or fancy slow computers for a lot of moolah. Of those choices, only the slow computers would let them keep their existing software. Apple should not have been surprised. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
S

spacester

Guest
"I'm not sure how to stop it, other than educating people . . . "<br /><br />Right. The only power a mega-corporation is not able to entirely manage is the power of the people. Governments can be managed. In a large part, the cutting-edge goal for a mega-corp is to get that last level of control over their world, and it is up to We The People to stand up and be accounted for if and when the mega-corp walks on us.<br /><br />The corporation as an artificial person is a danger to democracy and our society still has not fully come to grips with the need for dependable systems to counter-act that danger. The founders didn't put checks and balances in for the mega-corp.<br /><br />Having said all that, mega-corps cannot be assumed to be evil, and indeed they have learned that their bottom-line success can be enhanced by accounting for the social costs of the way they do business. IOW they are smart and sometimes they see the light and self-regulate before the People have to have their government do it for them.<br /><br />Having said <i>that</i>, my own vision of the future of business in space is populated by space tycoons with a vastly different mind-set than a mega-corp CEO. As a result, the actual on-the-ground and interplanetary politics will be unlike anything before it. IOW past history can only serve as background knowledge, not as a guide and certainly not as a template.<br /><br />The formative years of the political mind-set of those actually living on Mars will be the Tycoon Years, and the nature of the politics is going to reflect the individual mindsets of the tycoons. How old <i>is</i> Richard Branson, anyway? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

thalion

Guest
Barring terraforming such as KSR's books, I think the situation of Martian colonists will be so different from those of historical colonists on Earth that extrapolation from one to the other will be difficult. I'm guessing that the limits imposed by light-travel time, the Martian environment and adaptation to it, and interplanetary travel will result in currently unpredictable solutions. If I'm right, and there are no real Martian colonies before a half-century or more from now, then even terrestial generational changes could make a difference.<br /><br />In short, I think we're going to have to wing this one.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
I tend to find most discussions about governance of space settlements in general is that they are US centric and cliche ridden.<br /><br />Common themes include:<br /><br />1) All founding entities will be oppressive (assumes that the US historical experience is paradigmatic, and ignores both other historical experiences and the very different political systems that will likely exist in the settling nations).<br /><br />2) The rebellious settler societies will (of course) be the "good guys" and invent greatly superior social systems to the one they rebel against (ignores the historial reality that successful violent rebellions often result in more oppressive societies, not less).<br /><br />3) The American west is a good model for planetary settlement (assumes that the US historical experience is paradigmatic, ignores the much greater environmental hostility of other worlds, other historical frontier experiences and the very different political and legislative systems that will exist in the settling nations).<br /><br />4) Corporate interests will subsume national and/or international interests (despite the lack of historic or contemporary evidence that this is likely).<br /><br />5) Corporate interests will be corrupt and oppressive (despite evidence that coporations operating under the rule of law are no worse or better than other social entities).<br /><br />6) Settler socities will be made up of sturdy, independent homesteading people seeking a better life on another world (ignoreing the technical and economic realities of doing so).<br /><br />Now each one of these ideas is a possible future and separately on together can make entertaining SF. However since these have been done so often in fiction they are cliches and boring. Because of their naivity I don't think they are particularly helpful guides to discussing possible governance and social structures on other worlds. Except as discussion starters rooted in possible culture.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
S

spacefire

Guest
discussion and extrapolation need to start somewhere, and thus we rely to previous models of colonization.<br /><br />of course we can rarely predict the future accurately based on the past and present, but it's an interesting and useful execise to do so.<br /><br />I think Mars might be colonized after the asteroid belt, possibly by people who have lived a long time among asteroids in 0 g and require a lower gravity environment but still want some amenities like being able to take a walk and watch a sunrise/sunset. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
I never claimed the KSR books were accurate. However, they do provide a worst case scenario in some aspects. The main thing to think about is "What can go wrong?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
S

spacester

Guest
Jon, that's a nice list of the common themes, alright! So much of our discussions are colored by the fact that (I betcha) most of us read large quantities of Science Fiction as kids. It is hard to break free of those preconceived notions.<br /><br />The main thing along these lines that I got out of the Martian Settlement threads was that there seems to be two or three possible modes of movement of man to Mars, and that the resulting political environment can only be speculated on after at least a rough sketch of which mode you have in mind.<br /><br />Mode 1 would be what I call 'the standard model', which quite frankly I would more or less define as "the way JonClarke would do it if he was in charge of things." <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> I like the standard model, but I also like to explore other lines of thinking.<br /><br />Mode 1 would start with a smallish initial expedition, a logical derivative of the current DRMs (Design Reference Missions) out there (NASA, Zubrin, Stanford are three of them but there's a 4th or more IIRC?). The mission would be Science as a precursor to a future base, and after that, a settlement, is that right?<br /><br />Mode 2 would be an initial expedition sized for optimum survivability in a permanent settlement scenario, return trips available but multiple tours of duty would be the norm. This is my proposed mode, and the number of individuals I came up with is 28 for the first tour of duty.<br /><br />Mode 3 would employ the "KSR / Mental_Avenger First Hundred" approach. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Big Al the macho mining machine and large scale construction for long term high survivability. *Tim the Toolman Taylor Grunts* More Power! Mars needs a large effort to be conquered!<br /><br />Of course there are any number of alternative Modes but those are the big 3 I got from those threads. Obviously, my quick summaries are begging for clarification by their adherents.<br /><br />For purposes of projecting future Martian Politics, i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
Interesting comments from Jon, I agree about the American experience coloring our view of Mars/space settlement. <br /><br />One possibility that Spacester (and Jon) didn't mention is the "soveriegn individual" approach. An individual or small (4-12) group working with advanced robotics are their own nation/corporation. Bruce Sterling covered this in Crystal Express. The two extremes are beehive arcologies full of people vs individuals/small-group w/ lots of robots. <br /><br />One thing that can be guaranteed on Mars (if settlement happens this century) is that there won't be one single effort. Even from the beginning it will be settled by many different interests doing different things. Whoever is first (nation, corp, whatever) that lands on Mars first will only be able to control a certain amount of territory. The world won't allow any one nation (or whatever) to claim Mars - KSR dealt with this, even in Red Mars the First Hundred feel like their being invaded by some of the next-round colonists. 28 (2 dozen+) is a good concept number for a first effort. <br /><br />I don't think there will ever be a land rush for the Moon, but Mars is a different story. Zubrin's essence is that Mars has everything you need to build another technical civilization. <br /><br />Does Settlement have to support Science? I think that is debatable. As a potential colonist, you are going to face economic pressures. I can see a situation were your cooperative employee/crew/stakeholder has to spend a significant portion of their time in specialized, non-science activity. Building bottled water plants (for Earth export), braiding crafts from native spherules and shredded parachute, whatever pays the bills. Among the various settlements and factions there will be scientists (and engineers, media-naturalists, etc), but I don't see long-term settlement based around only science. There just isn't enough money. Unlike the McMurdo bases, to sustain even a modest Mars settlement will require significant <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts