Slashdot Mirror
Should a Mars Colony Be Independent? (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The BBC has an article about a recent essay (PDF) from researcher Jacob Haqq-Misra, who argues that any future colonies established on Mars should be independent from nations or corporations on Earth. He suggests that such colonists be entirely disentangled from Earth, to the point of revoking their Earthbound citizenship. Haqq-Misra also thinks we should establish laws on Earth to prevent governments, companies, and individuals from interfering with the politics or economics of Mars. That might be harder to do; clearly, even innocent communications between family members can have an effect, and surely there will be a continuous flow of supplies to help support a colony. Where would we draw the line? It may be hard to secure investments for a Mars colony if it is guaranteed to cut ties with those spending the resources to build it. At the same time, enforcing a relationship seems impossible at interplanetary distances. Still, we're starting to ramp up our Mars exploration plans, and it's a good idea to start debating these issues now.
We haven't been doing anything other than the space equivalent of NASCAR since the 1970s as far as human spaceflight goes.
Get back to me when we can actually put a man back on the Moon again, let alone Mars.
Mars looks pretty barren and especially devoid of water and food. The colonies would be heavily reliant on shipments from earth for quite awhile.
And no religion too.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
How about we fix the problems here on earth before we worry about going to Mars? You know, like poverty, war, disease, inequality, human rights violations, racism...
So they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes? How very Republican.
They'll have no exports. that means no source of cash to buy the things that Mars can't provide -- like modern medical supples, updated electronics, and other manufactured goods.
They'll also have no ability to pay for the rocket fuel to get to Mars in the first place, much less for additional trips to bring in new colonists when the PhD aquaculture guy who was running the potatoes gets himself run over by a rover.
Geeks really like to dream big about space, and the hate the bullshit conventional human institutions provide; but the problem is that the only sources of big-level funding for space have to be large-scale human institutions. Which means dealing with bullshit.
Here, let me sum it up for you in a "nut" shell. And I *do* mean nut.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pi...
Seems pretty simple to me. There is a kind of mental illness going around in certain circles. Otherwise sane and rational people completely loose their bowels whenever space is mentioned. They should know better.
I also support the total sovereignity of the independent nation state Atlantis
We haven't even reached the stage of a prison colony yet. Let's do that first. Once Mars is no longer a prison colony, then we can start discussing the possibility of limited self-governance.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WANa9Oku-JM
As long as the relentless authoritarians of the world exist.
As long as human greed exists.
This will never happen.
No: No, we aren't. A few dozen enthusiasts on the internet talking about how they would like to go to Mars does not equal a "ramp up". Fantasy stories wherein earth's technologies can be replicated without the base materials and manufacturing that earth provides does not equal a "ramp up".
Independent as can kill someone legally if they can't make there life support paymnet.
A more pressing question is just how many angels can fit on a pinhead?
You mean no one on Earth would have any responsibility to assist, rescue, or supply the Mars colony? Why would a country want to assist foreign citizens living elsewhere for free?
They'll have no exports. that means no source of cash to buy the things that Mars can't provide -- like modern medical supples, updated electronics, and other manufactured goods.
This may not be a problem.
GDP per capita has skyrocketed in recent decades, and would appear to be on an exponential curve. We're just about at the point where don't need as many workers as we have, to supply everyone with what they want.
The take-away is that automation and efficiency will continue to rise, so that less will be needed to make a self-sufficient colony. Machines which could mine raw materials and build more machines, for instance.
A breakthrough in AI would be enough to put us over the top.
Political independence equals economic independence. This doesn't necessarily mean total self-sufficiency: essentially no place on Earth is totally self-sufficient either.
Just as all colonies on Earth eventually either died out or became independent, the same pressures will eventually force any Mars colony to one of those same fates. One possibility is that the Mars colony will not produce wealth in excess of what it costs to maintain, in which case it will die out, either as a result of a disaster the colonists are unable to prepare for or as a result of the Earth-based funding drying up. The other possibility is that the Mars colony does produce surplus wealth, in which case the Martians will eventually get tired of sending a disproportionate share of that wealth back to Earth, and will gain their independence, whether through political or violent means.
But planning for independence from day one is foolish. The early colonists will have more pressing concerns, like keeping an adequate supply of heat and oxygen. The form of government that is suitable for a long-term, independent colony is naturally going to be very different from the form that is suitable for getting the initial habitat built. They'll also need support from Earth which will only be forthcoming if the colony is not politically independent. In fact, planning for independence at all is foolish. When the time is right, it will happen whether anyone planned for it or not, and likely not in the expected way.
Honestly I think history shows that not cutting national ties when entering a new territory is ideal. There is going to be a far greater need for supplies for those starting out on a new planet than those starting out on a new continent. If you were to go to the extreme of cutting citizenship, funding or any help you can basically say we are not going to colonize any new territory in the future. The reason independence is important is when a people do not have a say in policies that are implemented concerning them. An example of this is the 13 colonies in America when they were still loyal to the British Crown; they did not have representation in parliament, and they had to abide by what parliament handed down. This led to a very unfavorable situation for the colonists prompting the American Revolutionary War. The ideal solution is to either give these new colonists representation in their own governments here on earth, or to allow them to become independent when they decide to do so much like what was done with other colonies throughout the 20th century.
tl;dr Independence should not be enforced by the governments or people here but chosen by the colonists there.
Better start gold mining immediately upon arrival.
The answer is very simple to obtain if we go back to the definition of sovereignty, which is the enforcement by a group of rules on a territory.
If a Mars colony declares itself independent, is there an Earth nation that will be able to afford a fleet to bring a police force to Mars so that its own laws are enforced? As the answer is probably no, then Mars colonies are going to be independent if this is the will of the People of Mars.
Unless a government or some trillionaire donates the money with no strings attached, whoever pays for a Mars colony will probably determine whether it's independent or not. It's a nice thought that it would be independent, but unless the person saying that is donating the money, it's only a nice thought.
Mars lacks any kind of hospitable environment for complex life. Want to pile up tailings, toxic waste and refuse from large scale industrial manufacture?? Do it on Mars. You won't be polluting anyone's back yard, the environmental & liability risks are near zero, and your biggest customers are all downhill.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Independent colony already sounds like a joke. Being on Mars independent is one more of a joke. Independent colony on Mars is a joke squared.
Let them fight for their freedom like all of the rest of us have over the ages. They want the monies and support but no strings attached? Good luck with that.
History has shown that countries develop "new" areas. This has often been done by corporations, or their equivalent, and on occasion by countries. In every case, the new territory is part of an existing superpower. This allows for wars between the powers, and, after some reshuffling, wars against the superpowers, too.
Why should territories on other planets be any different? China will move some dirt or dust and claim everything anyway. The USSR will complain that any planet not owned by them is a military threat to their sovereignty. The US will attempt to say we were there first, so are entitled, even if we said we didn't claim it while there.
In the end, those with the most money, and best military, will win anyway.
But hopefully a few years before this guy takes over Earth.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Religion is one of those funny things that will crop up anyway, regardless of whether or not the colonists bring it with them.
Just start with the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
If it's the official religion of Mars, then the people who start to get fanatical about it will drill holes in the helmets to obtain the colander hats, go out side, and "Blort!", their eyes bug out of their heads like Schwartzenegger in Total Recall, and the problem takes care of itself!
Should the stateless 'martians' wish to return to Earth, they'd better maintain their passports because, the attitude of most countries towards immigrants appears to be deteriorating rapidly.
"starting to ramp up our Mars exploration plans"
What a dumb ass way to go about it. Plant a colony somewhere that looks like a good spot, and then let the colonists do the exploration when they are not busy reading Slashdot or playing on their X Box.
Lewis and Clark didn't do their thing until we already had colonies on the continent.
Why do we have to map the whole damn place down to the millimeter before we send people there? To employ a few roboticists? I'd rather have colonists there than a few employed roboticists on Earth.
Until Mars becomes a self-sufficient planet any discussion of 'should' it have a government independent from Earth is pointless speculation. Should a Mars population ever become self-sustaining it will govern itself independently of Earth. It is not an ethical question, it will simply come about. In any event if profitable trade can be maintained between the two worlds, both worlds will maintain such trade and protect it with objective laws.
The Roman empire - take it all.
Treaty of Tordesillas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - who from Earth gets what and a nice map.
East India Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Congo Free State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bantustan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Antarctic territories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A high tech land rush with lesser nations from earth funding distant insurgency efforts.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Where quality people live, things improve with time. But even the worst parts of Earth are much more hospitable to (known) life than the nicest parts of Mars.
Seriously — rich people shall be free to do whatever they want with their own money, but before taxpayers are compelled to finance travel to other planets, we need to colonize this planet we have right here.
Antarctica is an entire unsettled continent! Plus Australian Outback, Canadian woods, American Midwest, Siberia, Asian and African deserts — all have breathable air and comfortable gravity. All can be reached for hundreds rather than billions of dollars. And the ping-latency will not suck as badly...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I think Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids. In fact, it's cold as Hell.
How will an independent Mars colony earn the kind of money it will take to pay the freight for sending things they need to survive from Earth to Mars? It will be the classic coal mining operation just relocated to Mars- people will work all day on Mars doing whatever it is they do and they will earn less than enough to pay their debt to the shipping company that sends them their food, clothing, etc. They will be slaves. Maybe we should send prisoners there...
"it's a good idea to start debating these issues now."
You mean that every SF writer in the last 70 years has been writing in vain because pointy-headed pseudo-intellectuals haven't bothered to READ it?
Besides, it's baloney. Whoever pays for the rockets is going to want SOME return on their investment, and any Mars colony will certainly require support from Earth, at least at first. Saying "Any Mars colony should be independent from its founding" is a sneaky way of trying to eliminate any Mars colony attempt. I haven't bothered to check, but I predict that Jacob Haqq-Misra is a communist who is trying to prevent any capitalistic attempt to found such a colony.
The whole thing sounds silly when we don't even have a lunar colony yet. If either becomes self-sufficient it will be based on exporting mineral resources, and of course it'll be easier to set up lunar colonies - and easier to transport materials from there to Earth. So let's talk about independence for lunar colonists first.
up
and there's no one there to raise 'em,
if ya did.
I claim Mars (and Venus) as my sole property, discrete from the suicide cults of Earth. You have been warned.
So long as a Martian colony is dependent on the Earth to survive, it will not, (can not), be "independant". However, once any off-world colony becomes self-sustaining, independence will naturally follow.
Musk drives engineers at Tesla and Space X like slave laborers, but is still bound by labor regulations. On Mars there would be no such laws and allowing decreased communication would ensure recruitment stays high.
surely there will be a continuous flow of supplies to help support a colony
And someone will control that flow of supplies. That someone will therefore have absolute influence over the colony.
As for trade: what, exactly could Mars possibly have that would be tradable - given the extreme cost of transportation? Maybe once there is a Martian "sphere of influence" with LMO and its moons there would be some local trade (since the gravitational costs of getting stuff up there would be lower). But still: what would the Red Planet have that couldn't be made cheaper on (say) Phobos?
But Earth - Mars trading? We already have enough sand and rocks. Mars is like Earth's remote deserts and even we don't trade with those places, since they have nothing of value to offer. Similarly, we don't even colonise those parts of our planet - so the reasons for going to Mars would be more about getting away from Earth than any positive aspects of Mars itself. That doesn't bode well for the prospects of any future colonists.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
You see, the thing about laws is that they're worth nothing if you cannot enforce them. So you are going to do what, exactly, to stop company X when it ignores all of them to get an early monopoloy on, say, water treatment machines on Mars?
This whole "deregulation" bullshit hasn't worked, or rather: Worked in the opposite of what was promised, good job.
We don't need more "hands off" stupidity that fails. We need a good, solid framework, preferrably created by experts and not by politicians.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Either that or barter with something infinitely more valuable - information.
What information would that be, and why would anyone on Earth want to pay for that knowledge to be developed on Mars?
Face it, any trip to Mars will be an expensive ego trip for the nation or nations that pull it off. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, only that we should be realistic about the fruits of such a trip. The biggest thing they'll learn is 'How to live on Mars', and that information can't be 'sold' to people on Earth.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
They'll have to drop thousands of ice asteroids first, to get a little ocean where they can throw some tea in before becoming independent.
How many unmanned vehicles have landed on Mars only to report back very little of interest. Do we really want to send people to a planet that has been proven to be of little benefit to mankind? It almost seems some people want to do this just for a bucket list. If alien life did live on Mars at some point, its not there now. Same goes for the moon. Who wants to waste money to go to the moon and who in their right mind would do so to mine anything on the moon that could generate a profit? I think our only interest in Mars is that because of our pathetic advances in propulsion engines. Its probably the only realistic planet we could reach with humans. Even then the return would be impossible. Hence, all this talk about colonizing. That money spent, would be better served on Earth.
Eventually a Mars colony will become independent, when it is economically self-sufficient. But only Martians can do that. Just look at the British colonies as an example. America declared it's independence when it was able to and was forced to. If we had waited for the Brits to "give" us independence, we would still be waiting. And in the case of Mars, it will take a long time because self-sufficiency will be difficult.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
TFA opens its abstract with the observation that
Humanity has the knowledge to solve its problems but lacks the moral insight to implement these ideas on a global scale.
This, in and by itself, is the most thoughtful remark by an American in 2015 I've read. From there, the author develops his stance that Mars should be liberated before any human lands on it. His train of thought and chained arguments avoid any extremism, be it political or philosophical and cite such successful devices as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( to which, BTW, the USA is not a party, alas ). In brief: the author makes an excellent point, parting from a single philosophical argument. We need a couple more like him.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
and all the science I don't understand
And why do you want to cut off our air?
If we had waited for the Brits to "give" us independence, we would still be waiting.
Why? They've 'given' independence to other former colonies e.g. Canada, Australia. They've even offered it to Scotland which is part of mainland Britain (Scots turned it down in the referendum but they weren't required to wage war to get it). Seizing independence in the circumstances that existed at the time was perfectly reasonable (as was waiting by those countries who were happy to) but I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that we'd still be waiting now.
It would be cheaper to drop it into the sun...
As long as a mars colony is not viable on its own without stuff brought to earth : no it should be considered a region/state of the nation founding it. Afterward there are a lot of stuff they would have to abid to before being "free" : outer space treaty, various other nation treaty etc... And I concur to the guy who said "shut up until we set foot there". IMHO we will never have a mars colony. Not enough gain for the effort.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
And yet the brits enslaved my people in Hong Kong for over a hundred years. If China had simply nuked England, we could have wiped them out and taken our land and people back much sooner.
There has never been the question "Whether X should be independent." X is independent because it can. And whether it can, depends on how many people are willing to die for its independence.
Canada and Australia are not independent. They still swear allegiance to the Royal House of Britain. They are Commonwealth. The US is not. And if the US had not fought a war for independence, it is likely that all the colonies would still be more tightly controlled by England.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
This article should have been titled "debate the political landscape layed out in Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red/Blue/Green Mars trillogy" because that is exactly what this is. I think if 1653 pages on the subject cant come to a consise answer, then there is no concise answer.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Think about it: First of all, the cheapest commodity to ship is information, and it moves at the speed of light, even with existing technology. Most importantly, the business model would be familiar to customers.
Given time for some cultural drift, Martians will develop funny accents (seen "The Expanse"?) that customers will have have to strain to understand. The time lag will be roughly what customers are already experiencing ("Please wait while I check to see if you are eligible for a refund..." and then a fifteen minute wait before advancing to the next line of the brush-off script.
Airlines and cable companies will pay trillions for the ability to mistreat customers from an unreachable distance, and will pay for the entire cost of the colony.
I'm curious; considering that we aren't really anywhere near close to putting humans on Mars (I'd submit that a serious program to do so would be at least 10 years in the works, and to my knowledge no such program has started beyond mere speculation), where precisely does "space researcher" end and "science fiction author" begin?
Because wild speculation about who is responsible to whom in a situation fraught with complexities that may well be a century away sounds pretty much like science fiction to me. Oh, it's interesting on a sort of 'coffee discussion' level, but utterly meaningless on a substantive level.
-Styopa
"It might seem odd for a company or country to spend billions of dollars to get to Mars, only to relinquish any control over what happens on the planet. But itâ(TM)s not inconceivable, says Haqq-Misra."
Yes, yes it is.
Despite the speculations of an ivory-tower academic, countries and corporations are not charities. They do not dump billions (and perhaps trillions) of dollars into projects that will not return them (expected) benefits.
They simply don't.
-Styopa
This is one of those things where history got it right. We get sent to colonize and are supported by a particular governing body (group of nations?). At some point this governing body is no longer required. The colony decides to separate itself from this governing body when it is no longer required. If it is truly no longer required, the separation is a success. Some people sacrifice their lives, but eventually everyone becomes friends and they all live happily ever after.
Many people in several different "colonizations" refer to this transition as Independence Day.
Canada and Australia are not independent. They still swear allegiance to the Royal House of Britain.
Which is not a serious criteria for dependence. If the Queen tried to pull anything, they'd drop her like a bad diet.
And if the US had not fought a war for independence, it is likely that all the colonies would still be more tightly controlled by England.
Or at least more competently managed.
Independence for Mars? Hell no! We should raise their taxes instead! And no, they shouldn't get the vote, either!
Canada and Australia are not independent. They still swear allegiance to the Royal House of Britain.
Canada is fully independent. It is no less correct to say that Britain swears allegiance to the Royal House of Canada. The queen has two, independent titles: Queen of the UK and Queen of Canada. I expect Australia has a similar deal.
The advantage with Canada's independence is that we got it by asking nicely and without anyone having to die, we got to keep a parliamentary democracy which had the benefits of centuries of adjustments to make it function well and we got a constitution with a wonderful clause that stops those with wealth using it to block laws they don't like.
You may disagree but I would argue that Canada's path to independence worked out far better than that chosen by her neighbour and, if anything, that neighbour slowed the path to independence down since for a considerable time Canada wanted and needed British protection against her young, violent neighbour's territorial desires.
The article (on arxiv) is indeed thoughtful. Put aside whether a colony is even possible, the core theme of the article is that:
Mars is humanity's chance for a 2nd try at civilization... if they are independent, hopefully they will develop a more enlightened civilization.
But they won't, those first astronauts will bring their cultures with them and transmit it to their kids. No one knows how much they "are" their culture until they move abroad and live in a completely foreign culture. Mars will become just like Earth and given a few centuries will probably even start a war. Still, it is worth the experiment isn't it.
You just need to go at night
Its not, if you go there at night....
whenever the colonists decide to be independent.
And that will happen when there is enough population diversity to maintain and expand the population.
It won't happen until the bunch of engineers decide they can make all the necessary equipment locally (from computer chips/substitutes, chemicals, tools, medical supplies, housing, air, water, food...)
And they will be smart enough to know not to make an issue of it until after they have proven they can.
As for resources; there is plenty of water available (frozen), plenty of land (though it may need fertilizer), lots of metal resources.
The problem is an engineering one, not a social one.
A colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign.
So the corporations paying them a pittance to rip it up aren't sued by those lefty Solarist United Terran sympathisers.
If you are ready to defend it and fight for it someone else is less likely to take it.
They can't be independent. They will be too dependent on the supply chain back at Earth to be independent. Until they have basic industry, including bulk mineral and chemical processing, metal smelting, and plastics manufacturing all up and running reliably on the Mars surface, they're dependent on supplies from Earth. So, basically, until they can make their own Duck Tape... No independence for them!
enslaved
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
When a Mars colony is completely self-sufficient for Earth, making everything they need to run their whole economy, then definitely they should be completely independent politically.
I also propose that they should choose to be ruled by unicorns. Because by the time it becomes possible for a Mars colony to be completely self-sufficient we will be able to make unicorns through genetic engineering. They won't have magical powers, but they will be immortal and super intelligent, and we would be wise to submit to their superior wisdom.
When people talk about self-sufficient colonies on Mars they generally seem to have no concept of how far we are from having a technological basis to make that possible, no matter how much money is spent on Mars colonization.
Living on Mars is pretty much living in a vacuum, in a high radiation environment - just like living in space. Space flight qualified hardware for a small habitat like the ISS (home to 6 people, maximum) cost on the order of $100 billion, which represents the labor of something like a million person-years of effort. This support ratio of (lets round down) of something like 100000:1 makes the notion of self-supporting space colony fantasy. To support itself the ratio must be reduced to 1:1 (for a subsistence level existence), or higher (1:2?) for a more a enjoyable lifestyle. Consider also that currently that 80% of the time of the ISS crew is spent on ISS maintenance, and this this is not out of an 8 hour day of labor, with weekends and holidays off, but of most of their waking time.
Conservatively we need a five order of magnitude increase in productivity (think AI controlled, completely autonomous nanotech factories) to make Mars colonization on a self-sustaining basis possible. Quibbling to knock off a factor of 2 or 3 in my cost estimate, of even a factor of 10, or 100, only puts an insigniciant dent in the problem.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
America declared it's independence.
America: "It's Independence!"
Britain: "No, it's Not!"
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
They're putting the cart before the horse. Get back to me when we can deal with all the local issues on this planet first.
Ofc they are independed.
I would suggest to look up on wikipedia the list of recognized states on the world.
Being in the commonwealth has nothing to do with independence ... a no brainer actually.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes, Mars does need moms !
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Then go learn history, little white boy.
I expect once Musk manages it, thousands of people will pony up their life savings for a chance to experience true freedom before they die.
Of course it would be more efficient to work within the system here on earth, but there are just too many fuckin homo muslims sucking clinton dick to endure any longer. I mean Donald fuckin Trump is the people's choice. Does that show you how badly we have screwed the pooch?
Are you democrat shitheads really gonna vote for hillary? I mean you voted for gore, but that was just a vote against king george II. Bunch of fuckin losers really deserve what you get, I mean Australia should be an example to you, but you'te not to swift when it comes to socialist misfits. Fuckin FDR hind titters is what you are.
No taxation without representation!
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Lol. English enslaved Hong Kong? Please. Enslavement is what the Chinese gov is doing these days.
Divide the 2 planets is the worse thing your can do. Down the track this will start wars for resources from both sides. No foresight in this argument at all
Singapore became independent against its own will.
Technically the Queen is their head of state, but for nearly all practical purposes they're separate nations. The British parliament has zero legal sway over them. They're recognized by the UN as sovereign, which is basically the only working definition of a country.
Great. Yet another country to potentially be at war with. How about we just treat the colony well, so they don't have to be independent and differences of opinion can be resolved using democratic, peaceful means? Basically, if any of the current major powers (except possibly China) had a colony now, the colony wouldn't even be thinking of independence, it wouldn't even consider itself a colony, just more of the mother country's territory. By the time we get to Mars, if we ever go, even China will have figured out how to run a people's republic that it's actual people won't want to be independent from.
I'd wager I know more about it than you do, troll. And "little white boy"? That's what you choose as an insult?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Yes but we would have nuked China back. Then the US and maybe Israel would probably have joined in too. India also has nukes too and there are Indians who still remember being invaded by China. Then there is Russia, would they join in on China's side? or would they stay neutral? or would they even join in the attack against China? There are Russian strategists who fear China a lot more than they fear America.
This is why rattling the sabres is one thing, pushing the firing button something else.. Takes guts when you know that your cities are going to burn too.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
There is no such thing as "Earth Citizenship" so scratch that one. Nation of origin, hmmm, well okay for first generation, I would assume that would be the legal precedent, lacking any local governmental body to which you could apply for a change in citizen ship, you should retain your original one. Second generation? Now we have a problem. Hopefully, by the time there IS a second generation on Mars, there WILL be local government. If the local government is a recognized State or Territory of an Earthbound government, again, I see no problem (other than the usual political squabbles that is). The one problem I foresee, is that "Corporate Governmental Entities" (you heard it here first), should and *must* be banned absolutely by International Law PRIOR to this happening.
"[E]nforcing a relationship seems impossible at interplanetary distances."
Well ... not so very long ago, same would have been true for any relationship at all at intercontinental distances.
But it Mars is worth colonizing, then it must have value. For new Martians, even if Mars is made of delicious, easily transported cheese that regrows quickly and never dies, Earth is going to have a *lot* of value, because that's where the movies, Baja pullovers, and chocolate oranges are made.
Maybe the problem is that "enforcing" is a rightfully strange verb to apply to "relationship." Sounds pretty dysfunctional ;)
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I guess the Canadians, who had their constitution patriated nearly 20 years ago, would be shocked to find out they aren't independent. I don't know about Australia.
Shut up, nigger lover.
Here's what is wrong with the ideas in the quote. It separates "problems" from "humanity". Our most intractable problems are not externalities to ourselves, they are ourselves. Humanity itself is the snake in the Garden of Eden. This is one of the best, most insightful revelations that religion can bring to the table (but not solve, if you notice). Look up the Seven Deadly Sins if you want a starting direction on the subject.
There are endless practical problems was well. Just for starters:
- in order to solve any problem you need a good definition of it. You also need to confine the problem space enough that it is amenable to be solved;
- people have affiliations. A lot of the more aspirational and inspirational yearnings fail because they ask us to embrace all of humanity. While a fine sentiment, in practice we identify with people close to us geographically, culturally and politically. A shared history also helps;
- the resources needed to solve a problem matter. We have unlimited needs and wants and finite resources. Smaller problems are more likely to get addressed because of this. When a far-flung member of humanity has an unmet need and a local has an unmet want, which do you satisfy and expend the resources you have available? I'm not judging, I'm just suggesting that you take a look at the usual outcome and ask why. Now argue both for and against; which do you like/believe in more? Can you persuade others?
It's a fine quote and a nice sentiment. Just don't examine it too closely, if you intend to follow it's precepts.
And again...Yes. The seat warmers at terra's HQ have no clue what you be going on in a Martian colony. Help is also not readily available, so the folks on Mars have to figure it out on their own. My guess is that a month in being stuffed in a spaceship they decide to forget the whole idea and hit the "return to Earth" button on the dashboard.
It's about more than "pleasant". It's about arranging your surroundings for health, wealth, and good luck, basically.
What you're thinking about is called "Interior Decorating."
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I think you mean that America declared independence when they were sure of French support for their revolution. The Brits gave independence to most of their former colonies, America had to beg for it from the other world superpower.
But this is inconvenient to the propagators of American origin myths. Panamanians also don't learn that their country was created by America. Nope, it's glorious revolutions all the world 'round...
If a Mars colony is totally independent, Why would a corporation/nation even consider backing it?