Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should a Mars Colony Be Independent? (bbc.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the but-i-was-looking-forward-to-a-space-rebellion dept.

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.

9 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Oh shut up already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re: Oh shut up already by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We can't even create a colony on the moon, which is many times closer would be much easier to support. All this talk about Mars is just political posturing, because the moon has already been claimed (unless you think it was all a big hoax lol)

      And once someone sets foot on Mars, all this will stop and we will worry about Venus/mercury/Jupiter next. Just human stupidity.

      Moon? Hell. There isn't ability to have a decent colony at either of the poles. Places that are MUCH easier to live than other solar system bodies. People living in those places don't have the economic power to be independent.

      When you look at it like practical useful goods and services, good portions of this planet don't have the means to be independent. And they aren't.

      Nobody is going to be able to predict this, and nobody is going to be able to give independence because any organization that has the means to get people and stuff to another planet in any quantity is going to be very powerful. When the colony can shake that off, is when the time is right.

      Anyway, it'll never happen. We aren't getting off this rock in any real sense ever. I choose to intellectually masturbate about other subjects as a result. Now... let's talk about femm-bots.

  2. Should? Yes. Could? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mars looks pretty barren and especially devoid of water and food. The colonies would be heavily reliant on shipments from earth for quite awhile.

    1. Re:Should? Yes. Could? No. by murdocj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right. Just like the inhabitants of Antarctica barter with information. Got it.

  3. Sure by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And no religion too.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  4. And how does he intend to pull that one off? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Independent as can kill someone legally if they by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Independent as can kill someone legally if they can't make there life support paymnet.

  6. Re: Why should they be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The bottom 50% of Americans pay no tax at all, yet use the most tax dollars through programs like welfare, food stamps, Medicare, and subsidised housing. And most of these Americans vote Dem.

    Yes, things like sales tax, gas tax, (or any of the other dozens of taxes the lower class pays everyday for the things they need to survive), are not "Real" taxes, because... Reasons.

  7. Re:You can't declare independence for someone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.