Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: What Kind of Societies Will the First Mars Colonies Be?
New submitter nyri writes: I'm making a two-part study in what kind of societies humans will build on Mars when we start to colonize the red planet. In first part, I'm trying to approach the question sociologically as rigorously as possible. Sociology being what it is, this also includes informed speculation. So, what does Slashdot think: What sort of colonies will humans build on the red planet? How large will they be? How will they make decisions and select their leaders? What kind of judicial systems will they use? What happens if a colony's population grows larger than they are able to sustain? Will they be religious and if so, how? How will their internal and external economy work? And so on...
A second part of the study is of psychometric nature to explore the kind of personalities be present in first colonies. I also encourage you to take the survey.
A second part of the study is of psychometric nature to explore the kind of personalities be present in first colonies. I also encourage you to take the survey.
A couple of months of research can frequently save a couple of hours in the library.
Your questions are not new, to science or to science fiction, and have been covered extensively by people with relevant PhDs. Instead of tracking down their research and reading their conclusions and the reasoning for them... you're asking Reddit. Anonymous, probably ignorant and wish-based responses with the occasional gem you won't be able to reliably distinguish from the giant manure pile.
Since our governments aren't making the effort, the first Mars colonies will likely be run by corporations. It won't be pretty.
Please see this documentary film relating specifically to your question: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...
What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular.
Colonizing mars only works with technology we don't have yet. Once that tech exisits, societies will change, wether here or on mars will then make little difference. If people will be selected to live on mars, chances are we'll look for the emotionally stable to do the first wave of colonisation. ... You know, like astronauts.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Humanity is far too stupid to achieve a society of any real population on Mars before things like CRISPR, 3d printed plagues, and atomic warfare reduce our societies to a shadow of their former glory.
Heck, even the overuse of antibiotics is about to reduce our medical field to some sort of 1800's vintage joke.
"Sir you have appendicitis. Back in the good old days you would have lived, but now we can't even do surgery without you dying of an infection. Here is enough morphine to ride out the rest of your days in relative agony..."
It will start out as a Democracy with enlightened leadership. Eventually, factions would develop and then devolve into a barbaric society where there will be one despotic leader, science will be forgotten and folks will be just getting by until they all die-off from thirst.
Or, they will argue among themselves so much that a decision will never get made and they all die from thirst because of their inaction.
Or, the Martians come out of hibernation and eat all of them.
Nothing good will happen because humanity is a stupid child race and incapable of rising above its basic primate thinking.
Well, my money is on the first few being whackadoodle cults... and also suffering that imminent demise relatively soon after establishment.
Someone had to do it.
Because there is no fucking reason to go there other than bragging rights. Its a dead planet. The only time people migrate is when there is something to migrate for, be it a gold rush or self preservation. The reasons to go to Mars are............ Yeah
First of all, nobody is going to Mars for a lot longer than most people think. Costs too much now. Costs will drop slowly, And second, once people get there, most exploration will surely be done by robotic rovers -- probably controlled from orbit. AFAICS, there won't be any colonies until some terraforming is done. At the very least, getting rid of the toxic perchlorates that are said to be prsent in the soil. And hopefully some Oxygenation of the virtually nonexistent atmosphere. There may be a (very) few research stations on the surface and those will likely be militaristic. Think Antarctica -- which, BTW, is what the Martian climate will be like except that Antarctica is warmer and you can breath Antarctic air if you are careful about frostbite.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
With built in guilt of reproductibility.
The real question is 'why' we would colonize Mars, and it has to make some kind of economic sense because it will be an expensive endeavor.
love is just extroverted narcissism
"The Martian government was directed by ten men, the leader of whom was elected by universal suffrage for five years and entitled 'Elon.' Two houses of Parliament enacted the laws to be administered by the Elon and his cabinet."
Wernher von Braun
The Mars Project, Page 177
We need to do everything we can to ensure that the first and subsequent colonies are successful. That said, the first colony will definitely fail badly maybe even horrifically and we better have the stomach for that. There will be events or situations we didnt prepare for.
Exploration and pioneering is difficult but we need to do it or fall back into the tribalism and stupidity that plagues humanity.
And they will most likely be speaking Mandarin.
Unless the US can get rid of the cancerous politics called Trumpism, China will be the next imperial colonial power.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Or something resembling a tribe, just with higher technology.
I think it will be very similar to how Antarctica is today. There is a good starting point as a study case. Several science bases (maybe even some civilians, as Chile have in Antarctica today), each base belonging to a country of origin on earth, so each base will have a "local" law depending on that country. Lots of interactions/helping between bases. Mars won't be considered a foreign territory by any country, for many years to come. As in Antarctica, claimed territories will overlapped, but should not be a problem for anyone for some time. Problems will start when countries start exporting natural resources back to earth... specially coming from those overlapped territories. Thats my 2 pesos.
As in.... human.
Too bad they will probably outnumber the martians.
Seems pretty obvious to me... i doubt that the first society will even last long enough for the second one to arrive.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Having lots of sex with green-skinned women!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
My life goal is go down in the record books as the first human to die on Mars. Too bad they won't take me because I'm not in perfect health. I agree that economics dictate any trip to Mars will likely be one-way.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If it's commercial interests, it'll probably be governed by a board of directors. If it's by governments, it'll probably be essentially a military dictatorship (although it will probably be phrased more politely). In any event, given the conditions of living on Mars, highly centralized government is almost a certainty. A lot of things have to be coordinated, such as production of breathable air, creation of food and shelter, etc. Given that any mistakes could be catastrophic, there probably aren't going to be a lot of opportunities for doing your own thing or entrepreneurship. Sorry libertarians.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
the gop system people will need pay life support fees (but get it free in jail)
Science fiction books have been spectacularly wrong before, but that's the best source of such speculation anyway. Heinlein's Red Planet offers an idea — somewhat based on how remote colonies on Earth have been managed, when crossing the Atlantic took about as long — and was as risky — as getting to Mars may be soon. Written in 1940ies, it allowed for an ancient sentient race of Martians, but that does not detract from its description of the human life over there.
And how those colonies, dissatisfied with the overlords representing the remote government, eventually rebelled.
Another excellent book is The Martian Way — by Azimov.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I mean his Mars trilogy was nearly completely about the rise of a unique Martian society over the 100-200 years since its founding.
I think there are a lot of similarities between the exploration of Antarctica and of Mars. Sure, I'll get to some important differences, but I think it's the right starting point.
Once upon a time, Antarctica sounded like just about the most harsh, alien, abandoned and adventurous place one could go. The world's boldest men organized heroic expeditions to reach the ultimate bragging right: being the first to visit the South Pole. In time some succeeded, but not before others miserably died. The sheer adventure and alienness of Antarctica captured our fantasy. H. P. Lovecraft's best fantasy horror story takes place there.
But then, Antarctica was replaced in our imagination by Mars, the new go-to setting for our fantasy and horror. We got to the point where we knew just enough to fire up our imagination about what Mars is like, but we could still fill in the many gaps in knowledge with our fantasy. Just like "conquered" Antarctica with bold expeditions, we will eventually "conquer" Mars. Human footprints will get made, photographed, instagrammed, and gushed about. And then what?
Then Mars will start to seem a lot more like Antarctica: a place where we could survive and even build cities, with great effort and great expense, but ... why? The reason why no settlements are being built on the Antarctic continent is not because of international laws. If those laws expired, it's not like villages would start springing up. We have some scientific stations in Antarctica, and will will have some on Mars. I think their governing principles will be almost identical. But we have no Antarctic immigrants, and I don't expect Martian immigrants, beyond a couple of very rich weirdos. Once the place is covered with footprints, the exoticism will have worn off, and we'll see it for what it is: a strangely beautiful but also profoundly inhospitable cold place that's hostile to human habitation, and that probably should be preserved rather than bulldozed for space condos. The scientists there will complain of terrible food, terrible ping, terrible odors, terrible crampedness, annoying cancers and terrible shipping charges on anything they want to buy. At that point, who will be signing up to live there? The same people now dying to live in Antarctica.
..at first.
As much as I'm wired to look at what can go wrong with things (because ignoring that could be disasterous), I really hate to have to be that way with this subject. However there's so many things that can go wrong, most of them fatal, that you really can't ignore it.
The first few attempts at human colonization of Mars will likely be disasters where all the participants end up dead for one reason or another; sadly, anyone who agrees to go has to accept that it's very possibly a suicide mission. There is no rescue from Earth; there likely won't be any way of escaping back to Earth; the Martian atmosphere, such as it is, isn't breathable, and it's thin enough that (if I understand it correctly) radiation from the sun is a problem -- as is radiation exposure just getting there in the first place. Any habitat built there has to be 100% self contained, 100% self sufficient, essentially like a spacecraft except rooted to the planets surface, and with some notable exceptions: you have to be able to grow your own food in a sustainable way, you're not bringing all your food with you like you would for a LEO mission or to go live on the ISS. And so on, and so on. A whole list of things that, if they aren't done right, can kill everyone in the colony. That's not even taking into consideration the unknown unknowns that could also kill everyone. Assuming we stuck with it, there'd have to be several attempts at a Mars colony, before you got one that actually didn't end up with everyone dead. At least at our current level of technology, that is. Fifty years from now might be a different story entirely. Of course, fifty years from now, we might not even be capable of putting anything in LEO, for all we know.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We need to learn to walk before we can learn to run. We need Training Wheels on this particular bike -- and luckily for us, we've got the perfect place to practice right in our local neighborhood: the Moon. We should be building a permanent human presence on the Moon first, with all the infrastructure that implies, followed by industry to support space operations. We can make all our mistakes on the Moon, first, where it's possible to come up from Earth to fix them and/or rescue inhabitants. Industry built there can support any Mars missions (or asteroid missions, or whatever) easier than having to launch from Earth all the time. There would be many more advantages to this than I can easily list here.
I think you underestimate the religious impulse. Religions are and were nearly universal in human history. In fact I suspect they were adaptive.
How do you get people to cooperate? How do you create social cohesion? How do you install and stabilize a command structure? Religions, most of them, are incredibly useful for installing social ideas about "how things ought to be" and "how we organize ourselves".
Religions create a common social history, a shared book of stories.
That is the answer to the question.
Any far-off colony will likely be a Corporate Entity, and exist under the totalitarian rule of the Board and its dictates.
After all, who else is likely going top be able to fund such an endeavor? The chances of survival will be closely tied to the colonists adhering to carefully calculated "laws for survival", Supply and demand quotas, with food and energy supplies generated with the lowest possible bottom line (and quality to match). Good producers will be rewarded, and less than expected output will suffer penalties. Threatening behaviors of colonists will have to be dealt with harshly, as that would threaten everyone...
In other words, doomed before they start.
If the Bean-Counters get involved, and the Profit Margins of the shareholders are in any way put at risk by the success or failure of the mission/colony, then things will be less than hospitable for the colony environment. It will be more like a prison than a "peat pellet pot" of hope and salvation for Humanity.
All in all, I doubt the first few attempts at colonies will be very successful, except as examples of what not to do in future attempts.
Because something just has to go seriously wrong, otherwise how will they make a movie about it?
I tend to rant.
I know it's verboten to actually RTFA around here, but if anyone had you would have noticed that the "survey" that OP links to is really a personality test. Stealth Scientology recruiting?
It makes no sense to send males up. They tend to have higher average body mass and a higher metabolism. Both of which demand more scarce resources. Male reproductive duties can be easily replaced by sperm banks. Then there is the testosterone aggressiveness.
For genetic diversity a few select males may be allowed to reach puberty. After which their sperm would be harvested for future generations.
Then the males can be recycled for food product before the hungry years of late puberty and early adolescence kick in.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Of course it will be a benevolent dictatorship!
At least until there are enough minions to declare most of them slaves to build the temples!
Then it becomes an evil dictatorship!
That is the plan! Baaaahaaaahhaaaaahaaaahaaaaaa!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
how many female indentured servant PHD's paying off their travel/air/food fees each billionaire overlord is allowed. /s?
Will have to be run like a Navy ship or Airplane.
One person will have to run it as a meritocracy based dictatorship.
Democracy will come later.
Religion is the best way to force healing upon a world that is deeply and violently divided by religion.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
...short-lived? It's a pretty hostile environment and small mistakes, e.g. miscalculating energy, air, water, or food consumption, as well as unforeseeable events will lead to certain death for many. It'll be a harsh, cruel, unforgiving, and lonely environment to try and make your home in. Any estimates on how much it'll cost per kilo to transport people, equipment, and supplies to Mars?
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
A society on Mars will be a Utopia. Because humans have done such a fantastic job of creating a utopia on earth.
In short: humans will continue to be filled with: greed for excessive share of resources, lust to posses others for their own gratification, desire to control others, and need for others to stroke their egos. It will be wonderful!
People too young to understand this might think that technology will solve all our problems. Clue: it's not a technical problem. Or that people on Mars will be "better". Or we'll only send the "best". But the people who get to select the "best" won't be selecting for what you are thinking of. And even if they are, the problem is not an external problem. It is an internal problem that humans have and cannot overcome.
Some think that enough wealth will solve the problem. The lessons right here today should quash such notions. People are greedy. Insatiable greed. No amount of accumulation is enough. If a person has two loaves of bread and their brother has none, some people will share and some will not. The ones who will share will be exploited by the others who will not share. And wealth is nothing more than tokens that, in total, represent all of the available resources and labor. Printing more tokens simply diminishes the value of those tokens. (eg printing money) Some people have an insane amount of wealth (eg, share of earth's resources) and think they don't have an obligation to help poorer people because those people are not entitled to a share of the earth's resources. And the people who will argue this point are exactly a demonstration of why we have a problem that we cannot fix ourselves.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Has anything good ever come from establishing a remote penal colony in an inhospitable place?
The result would be a land entirely peopled with criminals!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Probably - that's historically pretty likely with expensive colonization projects: Company towns where the appointed governor had extreme power so long as he stayed in the good graces of his superiors back home.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Well... in Acidalia Planitia they're an Elon-tater-ship.
Valles Marineris is a Musk-ratocracy.
But in Schiaparelli, they're an autonomous collective
And in Olympus Mons they're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. They take turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week-- But all the decisions *of* that officer hve to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting-- By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
My life goal is go down in the record books as the first human to die on Mars. Too bad they won't take me because I'm not in perfect health.
Although, it sounds like your health status is conducive to achieving your goals on Mars. I'd lead with that in the astronaut candidate interviews - NASA is very goal oriented.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
What do you need to colonise a planet? The same as you need to colonise a (newly discovered) continent.
That would require a source of funds, a cohesive group and a willingness to die for "the cause". Many religious groups would fit that description - or could raise the capital. As far as the very real risk of death, it's an easy spin. Add in the prospect of escape from persecution on Earth and you'd probably have them queuing at the spaceport gates.
But why only 1 religion? Why not all of the ones with a sense of persecution, a shit-ton of money (or rich believers) and a willingness to risk their lives for something they believe in.. Maybe Mars would be the place they would all want to claim for themselves. The only problem would be in a few hundred years, when their expansion and competition for resources means they would bang up against each other.
But that has always been the path on Earth, too. Plus ca change!
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
OP here. First, thank you for everyone participating in the discussion. I'm personally thrilled!
Second, a friendly reminder. I would be awesome if you could also fill out the survey: https://togowhowants.net/
It would be really helpful as psychometrical research is typically plagued by too small datasets. Thank you. :)
I'm going to have to go out on a limb and say that the first mars colonies will be nonexistent. It will be the dream of man until man stops dreaming.
I think mars should be terraformed first. take some mass from that asteroid belt maybe a few icy comets, slide that greasy pig in the oven and in a million years we got ourselves another planet. Of course by that time we will have either perfect interstellar travel or perished.
lose != loose
The first communities should be robotic that can do all the hard work that humans would normally do. There is no reason to send humans there. Robots are going to replace the workforce on earth, so why should astronauts be exempt from that?
Even then it would be a waste of resources. It makes more sense to try and mine an asteroid for something, because then at least you're extracting a resource.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
My point exactly. The moon is a harsh mistress.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
If SpaceX has anything to do with it they will be rich and Chinese.
Mainly rich.
Science damn you and your heretical Giga batteries to hell!
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
imaginary, and a great example of '80s science fiction.
You're right but not really from an orbital mechanics perspective. "Local Neighborhood" is a somewhat nebulous term, in that the Delta-V to get to Mars is not that much more (in some cases less in a flyby!) than landing on the moon. It depends on a lot of factors such as how much aerobraking you can take advantage of when you get there, and the positioning of Earth and Mars. Most of the infrastructure you need to get out of our gravity well will take you to Mars without much more effort.
Secondly, Mars has a lot of things that the Moon doesn't. It has an abundant supply of water locked up in ice we can easily use to create both water and oxygen. It has an atmosphere (albeit weak) that can somewhat protect from solar radiation, and can allow for slimmer, more mobile pressure suits. It has much stronger gravity, reducing the physiological impact of a long-term mission.
They will eventually all be racists...
so, essentially, racists...
The motivation for going to Mars is rather limited. The two groups of people who would likely want to go to Mars ( at least initially ) are idealists / adventure seekers and the wealthy ( like Elon Musk ) who want a 'plan B' in the event of a catastrophe on earth ( be it natural or man made ). Since the former can't afford it I would wager the later would pay the former to ensure there is adequate laborers.
I envisage an 'estate' with a personal home of 'the gentry' surrounded by food generating biomes surrounded by much smaller homes or apartments of the 'serfs' who work the estate. The bulk of the time - when the gentry family is on earth - the surplus produce of the biomes would be sold off thereby providing additional food for a growing colony population. Only when significant numbers of the gentry relocated to Mars would there be any food constraints.
Ultimately the gentry who manufacture goods or consumables on Mars or just imported them effectively might relocate there to 'manage the business' which would further the colony growth.
Also if idealists / adventure seekers were in short supply you could easily get people in poorer countries to fill the role of serfs. I'd wager that if you offered $30k for a 3 year 'contract' to a person to work for you on Mars for 3 years ( food and lodging paid ) a great many people would sign up.
- The Nail
...protests, and laziness will look like in Mars colony. Because all of that will happen. That's more entertaining of a thought exercise for me.
A Mars society is going to be science based otherwise they won't last very long. Will this cause atheism to be dominate on Mars?
Why would it? It's not as if atheism is any more scientific than any other religion.
Floating colonies in the Venusian atmosphere are actually more technically feasible for humans than the surface of Mars. At the right altitude the air pressure and temperature would be the same as Earth's, you can suck everything you need to make food, water, plastics and carbon fiber out of the atmosphere, no worries about cosmic rays, gravity is almost the same as earth and it's closer. The atmosphere wouldn't be pleasant on your skin but you don't really want to touch the Martian soil either.
You're right. There are problems in getting to Mars. And likely some people will die getting there. But it's really not a one-way trip. More like an incredibly expensive, and quite risky round trip. My take:
Cost to get two or three people to mars orbit -- about the same as Apollo, the Space Shuttle, or the ISS (to date). -- $150B in current dollars. Chances of their getting back alive -- I dunno 70-85%. They will likely have a bit of radiation damage and may not be great life insurance risks. But they will be functional
Biggest problems. Radiation. Need to develop some life support technologies for a two year trip with no resupply. Provisioning -- what sort of spares do you send for a two year trip with no hope of resupply?
Trip to the surface of Mars and back -- Much more expensive -- maybe $600B Problems? Same as trip to Mars orbit plus the need to get a lot of mass - a landing system for the crew, a return rocket vehicle, and probably a separate landing system for the return vehicle. -- from Earth to Mars. And a LOT of technology has to work.
Chance of the explorers getting back alive -- maybe 60%
Just a guess
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Delta-V isn't the issue, it's time, namely the difference between getting to the Moon and getting to Mars.
Also the lack of resources on the Moon is a feature not a problem; if we can make a colony work on the Moon then it'll probably be easier to deal with Mars, and all so much closer to Earth.
We already live in a computer controlled age.
And BTW. We already know what colonies are like on Mars because there are already a couple of them there.
Robots.
will control Mars. Paid for by Westeners
Ask Slashdot: What Kind of Societies Will the First Mars Colonies Be?
Dead.
Next question.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I'd mod this up to six.. seriously. As the US moves closer and closer to an authoritarian regime where news is only a lie and only the privileged have rights this becomes more and more the reality and less the skepticism it used to be.
once more into the breach
I speculate that something will happen, and they will all die.
The amount of infrastructure needed, backup supplies, essential items is pretty astounding.
I suppose with enough air and food they could fortify themselves in a pressurized bunker.
All of this? A freakin' waste of taxpayer dollars.
Just check out some 1970s and 1980s movies on this subject.
Even the Simpsons have done an episode or two on this thought. Who should we send? Yea, Krusty the clown.
We've learned a lot from them, right?
But yeah, I have to agree with one of the above: there won't BE any Mars colonies.
Probably dictatorship. Whoever would be flight commander, after they land there will keep commanding. After years passing by society will "prove" him/her having a blue blood or royal origin and keep reigning (Grimaldi anyone). Unless some Martians tell them to get lost and leave Mars as were told when Americans landed on the Moon.
Why would it? It's not as if atheism is any more scientific than any other religion. "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby".
Atheism is not a religion in the same way collecting newspaper editorials that complain about people collecting things is not a hobby.
Theism = A belief that a god (or gods) exists
Atheism = A non-belief that a god (or gods) exists meaning a belief that there is no god and therefore, atheism is not a religion.
In Europe, in the late 17th century and 18th century there was the period called the "Age of Enlightenment" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... In this period, philosophers such as Sir Isaac Newton attempted to document how God made the Universe work by studying natural phenomena. In this time leading into the Industrial Revolution, science overthrew some religious views and in the 19th century the term Scientist was first used.
I wonder whether going to Mars will bring about "the 2nd Age of Enlightenment" which will tend towards atheism resulting in secular societies for the common goal of surviving on Mars ?
Will new Mars specific Bibles need to be written ? Such as will "Heaven and Earth" become "Heaven and Mars" ?
It seems that disussion is finshed. As the original author of the post, I would like to thank everyone participating in the disgussion.
Though as you might recall, unlike way back when, quite a few (well relatively speaking of course) people go to the Antarctic for adventure tourism. So while I don't disagree with you at all, there may be some vacation opportunities for some ultra-rich at some point I suppose.
Even a scientific community which is heavily depended on Earth support is pretty cool however. I'd imagine due to the logistics it would be of the very small variety, that said, I could totally see the "residents" coming up with some sort of joke government just for fun. Mayor of Mars or something like that, or Supreme Planetary Leader or something....
If you have ever been in a cohesive group on the same page about its goals, quick votes are a very natural way to make decisions. First colonists will be highly knowlegable explorers who just want things to work so that they can satisfy their curiosity. Complex politics can wait until later. Things may be different for asteroid miners working in a corporate environment where its clear what the purpose is and who is paying the bills.