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.

Comments

Oh shut up already

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Oh shut up already

[jafiwam]

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.

Sure

[binarylarry]

And no religion too.

Re:Sure

[Tom]

That depends.

Religion appeared on earth because our ancestors lived in a frightening world full of stuff they didn't understand but that could kill them. Lightning, floods, diseases, etc. etc.
Religion was a way to at least explain it, which dissolves psychological stress. We have since replicated that even in rats, random unexplainable punishment leads to mental breakdown, while predictable, understandable punishment leads to adaptation.

Thought experiment:
If you take people today, vet them very carefully for being rational and non-religious, and make them start a colony, for what reason would religion appear? With a scientific approach to the universe, there are still unexplained things, but you know that eventually you will be able to understand them, and you have a big framework of understanding to put them in until then. There is no reason for fear and mental pressure.

And how does he intend to pull that one off?

[NicBenjamin]

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.

Re:Should? Yes. Could? No.

[murdocj]

Well, then the inhabitants should also plan on paying full freight for food, air, water. Which will be billions.

Re:A breakthrough in AI would do it

[mi]

Seriously, back then we convinced people to pay like 5% of GDP for a moonshot. Today we can't get them to a single percent.

That may be because our National Debt in 1969 was below 30% of the GDP, whereas today it approaches 120%.

and then those poor babies have to send 15% to the government.

Dunno, what you are talking about, my taxes combined reach 50% — and I sure as heck do not work on Wall Street.

Re:A breakthrough in AI would do it

[slowdeath]

Your MARGINAL tax rate could be close to 50%. However your EFFECTIVE tax rate on all your entire income is likely not anywhere near 50%.

Re:Should? Yes. Could? No.

[dfenstrate]

Once it becomes self sufficient, it will rebel anyway. Nobody could afford to send a tax enforcement and collecting rocket. And there's no way in hell any self-respecting Martian would vote for any of the current Earthican candidates for president - it's not like they could be represented by an off-worlder.

Nope, they should just plan for a 100% independent planet from Landing Day onwards. Their interactions with Earth should be through trade negotiations and contracts, just like any sovereign nation.

Trade negotiations? It's unlikely that Mars has any material worth hauling back to earth, and there's nothing that could be made there cheaper than on earth. Or even the moon. There will be no 'trade.' As for being 'independent', there's no way even the best planned and equipped mission could make it past 10 years without equipment & material from earth.

No, in the best-case scenario, any Mars outpost will be a massive money pit for nations and corporations on earth for a good 50-100 years. That's about the time you would need to build the ridiculous infrastructure and industrial base required to live independently on Mars. I wouldn't count on anything more than a token presence on Mars in our lifetimes.
There wouldn't be any point of 'independence' until the colony could support itself anyway. Interpersonal squabbles would have to be settled largely locally in any case. There would be no land and little personal property to argue over. Crimes might require the input of legal professionals on earth to adjudicate- no one's going to waste money sending lawyers into space, and the people paying the bills might take offense if the locals just start 'airlocking' the troublesome. There would also be no 'market' to tax or manage for that first 50-100 years. 'Independent from landing day onwards' is a silly pseudo-western sci-fi fantasy. There's no long-term survival on this frontier without a steady stream of expensively shipped parts from Earth. 3-d printing isn't going to keep a colony running, even if they could source the raw material on Mars. As for sourcing the raw materials on Mars, can you imagine establishing a mining operation?

It's simple. If the 'Independent' Martians piss off the people paying the bills, they're just going to say "The return rocket is fueled. It's right where you left it. We're not sending anything else your way. We suggest you perform an inventory and make your decision soon."

You can't declare independence for someone else.

[duckintheface]

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.