how do we share Mars?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't even think the American colonies really were "self-sufficient" in any way - to produce sufficient food for themselves, they needed to constantly import slaves, for example. Trans-Atlantic trade was going from the very start.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, but we can plant crops in Martian soil. And native life on Mars hasn't been ruled out quite yet. In the initial colonization phases, food and water are much more important. In the case of Mars, one would also need to set up a small biosphere or greenhouse that would allow people to have access to fresh air. Once this is set up, it should be pretty self-sufficient.

For food, not for natural resources.

 

 

Terraforming Mars has been proposed as a way to make it more habitable for humans and Earth based life. As for the claim that Mars has no natural resources, this is off the mark. For example, there is hydrogen in the polar ice caps (and underground). Mars itself is a rocky planet composed of silicate compounds and iron-oxides, and I'm sure there are plenty of specific metals and minerals there to use (though not found yet). And whatever cannot be mined on Mars can most certainly be mined on its moons. As for plastics, cellulose can also be used to make them as we do on Earth.

If you want to be limited to celluloids. Plastics such as polystyrene are formed with petroleum products.

 

There are a vast number of other natural resources you'd have to be able to collect as well. You also face the question of practicality: the mineral might exist on one of Mars's moons, but is it really practical to harvest it from there? There is already a significant risk in launching a spacecraft from Earth, and there would be a greater risk in launching one from a small spaceport on Phobos and landing it on Mars. You're assuming a level of sophistication we have not yet reached.

 

And why would we need to terraform Mars to be exactly like Earth? After all, there is research going on in being able to manipulate the genetic code of humans. Sure, in its current state we probably won't survive even with genetic manipulation but all we really need to do is make the atmosphere breathable and the temperature high enough for liquid water to exist. And raise the atmospheric pressure of the planet somewhat.

"All we need to do"? How do you propose raising the atmospheric pressure? How do you propose to replace the 95% CO₂ atmosphere with one of around 20% oxygen? How do you propose we raise the temperature of the planet?

 

All of those really are big problems that would take many years to solve, even if we did have the technology. Replacing the atmosphere of a small planet is not something to sneeze at.

[MolotovCocktail]

I don't even think the American colonies really were "self-sufficient" in any way - to produce sufficient food for themselves, they needed to constantly import slaves, for example. Trans-Atlantic trade was going from the very start.

 

Not necessarily. The American colonies mostly used slave labor to make the cost of crops a lot cheaper and more profitable. And they were mostly used on big plantations where they grew tobacco and cotton. As for food, they were able to sustain themselves without slave labor.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Not necessarily. The American colonies mostly used slave labor to make the cost of crops a lot cheaper and more profitable. And they were mostly used on big plantations where they grew tobacco and cotton. As for food, they were able to sustain themselves without slave labor.

That was merely one example, and I'm not even sure of the historical accuracy of what you just said. I defer to someone who knows more history.

 

But the point about Mars still stands.

[Sayonara]

The American colonists could get along with pretty crude shelter or even sleep out under the stars while exploring.

Not to mention that if an area turned out to be not quite to their exact requirements, they could up and move without having to worry about things like food, air, and radiation shielding.

 

Besides, if a colony is even semi-successful there will be regular visits from Earth. There will be resources and equipment that is simply easier and cheaper to get from the next Earth shipment rather than make it yourself.

Simpler, cheaper, and let's not forget "possible".

 

Shipments of some kind will always be needed, which is why Mars will never be independent, whether the colonists want to "declare" it or not. As you obviously understand, there is a big difference between independence as a political ideal, and independence as a fact of reality.

 

 

No, but we can plant crops in Martian soil. And native life on Mars hasn't been ruled out quite yet. In the initial colonization phases, food and water are much more important.

This is all very true, but none of it addresses the points I made. Specifically, it does not show how informational, educational, material, or alleviatory demands placed on Earth by Mars could ever be handled "in house".

 

In the case of Mars, one would also need to set up a small biosphere or greenhouse that would allow people to have access to fresh air. Once this is set up, it should be pretty self-sufficient.

Personally I don't think "pretty self-sufficient" will be quite good enough. However, since we are discussing the control of territory across an entire colonisation attempt (which I take to mean that the attempt is a success, and therefore that we should be considering post-colonisation Mars as well), then we should probably just take the availability of air as a given.

 

Terraforming Mars has been proposed as a way to make it more habitable for humans and Earth based life.

I am quite aware of this concept. I don't think it has a bearing on any point that I raised.

 

As for the claim that Mars has no natural resources, this is off the mark.

I made no such claim.

 

For example, there is hydrogen in the polar ice caps (and underground).

I am sure that would be an important energy source for the primary colonisers (assuming they can access it, of course). Whether or not it would support the independence of a civilisation is another matter.

 

Mars itself is a rocky planet composed of silicate compounds and iron-oxides, and I'm sure there are plenty of specific metals and minerals there to use (though not found yet).

Whether or not you are sure that there are plenty of metals laying about the place does not mean that colonists would find (or rather, find AND be able to extract and process) everything they need.

 

And whatever cannot be mined on Mars can most certainly be mined on its moons.

You do realise you have just upped the technical and fuel requirements by an order of magnitude, without presenting any evidence that Phobos and Deimos can provide all the same resources as Earth?

 

As for plastics, cellulose can also be used to make them as we do on Earth.

No, cellulose could be used to make certain types of plastics, with limits on their usefulness. Not to mention the assumptions that you have the means to manufacture cellulose films, and the plant material to spare (which would be on top of your oxygen generation and food requirements).

 

And why would we need to terraform Mars to be exactly like Earth?

I don't believe I stated that to be a requirement. However since you mentioned it, because we will be using organisms and biology from Earth, and not brokering the future of Mars on made-up ecological models, it does seem likely that it would go that way.

 

After all, there is research going on in being able to manipulate the genetic code of humans. Sure, in its current state we probably won't survive even with genetic manipulation but all we really need to do is make the atmosphere breathable and the temperature high enough for liquid water to exist. And raise the atmospheric pressure of the planet somewhat.

I really don't see where this is going. Not only is that more difficult and expensive (and therefore less likely to occur, since humans follow the path of least resistance and failing that the path of least cash release), but it in no way supports the claim of Martian independence being possible, which appeared to be your bone of contention.

 

Not necessarily. The American colonies mostly used slave labor to make the cost of crops a lot cheaper and more profitable. And they were mostly used on big plantations where they grew tobacco and cotton. As for food, they were able to sustain themselves without slave labor.

Yes -- by eating the food that was laying about the place, multiplying in its natural habitat.

[Phi for All]

No, but we can plant crops in Martian soil. And native life on Mars hasn't been ruled out quite yet. In the initial colonization phases, food and water are much more important. In the case of Mars, one would also need to set up a small biosphere or greenhouse that would allow people to have access to fresh air. Once this is set up, it should be pretty self-sufficient.

I think the term "self-sufficient" is causing problems here. When I think of self-sufficiency with regards to a teenager moving out of the house, if he can pay his own bills I'd call him self-sufficient even though he comes back every once in a while to do laundry. A Martian colony that calls itself self-sufficient better be able to make *anything* they need without calling home. Do you think a 50-year-old Martian colony could make it's own computers and specialty tools?

 

 

Terraforming Mars has been proposed as a way to make it more habitable for humans and Earth based life. As for the claim that Mars has no natural resources, this is off the mark. For example, there is hydrogen in the polar ice caps (and underground). Mars itself is a rocky planet composed of silicate compounds and iron-oxides, and I'm sure there are plenty of specific metals and minerals there to use (though not found yet). And whatever cannot be mined on Mars can most certainly be mined on its moons. As for plastics, cellulose can also be used to make them as we do on Earth.

You're still talking about a division of labor that would require this Martian colony to be enormous to be self-sufficient. And remember, the bigger it is, the more resources it needs.

And why would we need to terraform Mars to be exactly like Earth? After all, there is research going on in being able to manipulate the genetic code of humans.

So if we can't change the planet to suit ourselves, we change ourselves to suit the planet? That's going to meet with some resistance.

Sure, in its current state we probably won't survive even with genetic manipulation but all we really need to do is make the atmosphere breathable and the temperature high enough for liquid water to exist. And raise the atmospheric pressure of the planet somewhat.

I think you need to give it more than 50 years, a lot more.

[MolotovCocktail]

For food, not for natural resources.

 

 

 

If you want to be limited to celluloids. Plastics such as polystyrene are formed with petroleum products.

 

There are a vast number of other natural resources you'd have to be able to collect as well. You also face the question of practicality: the mineral might exist on one of Mars's moons, but is it really practical to harvest it from there? There is already a significant risk in launching a spacecraft from Earth, and there would be a greater risk in launching one from a small spaceport on Phobos and landing it on Mars. You're assuming a level of sophistication we have not yet reached.

 

The escape velocity on the moons is not as high as that on Earth or on Mars. Blasting off on a moon as small as the ones around Mars will take a lot less fuel and will be cheaper. I think what you are thinking of is the difficulty of putting a rocket in orbit around the moons, in which the difficulty lies with the fact that the shape is irregular.

 

As for petroleum products, I'm not sure that the people on Mars would need to manufacture them in any case. The US, for example, gets the raw material from the Middle East. I'm sure that Martian colonies could set up some sort of trading system.

 

"All we need to do"? How do you propose raising the atmospheric pressure? How do you propose to replace the 95% CO₂ atmosphere with one of around 20% oxygen? How do you propose we raise the temperature of the planet?

Well, while raising the pressure would be difficult, raising temperature is not and changing composition is not. In fact, we are already doing that with our own atmosphere on Earth (e.g. global warming). It would take a long time, rest assured. I watched a show on this and they proposed "polluting" the atmosphere with ozone and greenhouse gases.

 

All of those really are big problems that would take many years to solve, even if we did have the technology. Replacing the atmosphere of a small planet is not something to sneeze at.

 

I may have unintentionally implied this, but I did not say that it would take place overnight. I was just responding to the fact that you guys are assuming that you need to take everything with you for colonization. However, I have pointed out how colonization can be sustainable without the need to import everything from Earth nor would they need to terraform right away.

[MolotovCocktail]

That was merely one example, and I'm not even sure of the historical accuracy of what you just said. I defer to someone who knows more history.

 

But the point about Mars still stands.

 

 

I could quote my history textbook if you want.

[Sayonara]

I think you need to give it more than 50 years, a lot more.

I am still going with "never".

 

I imagine the space phone calls to go something like this:

 

- Call for you sir, it's Mars. Again.

- Good morning, this is Earth President Blair.

- Good morning Mr President, this is the Superking of the Martian Independent State. How is the weather there?

- Homely. What do you want?

- Well, we've had an outbreak of... something. We don't know what it is, quite frankly. Any chance you could shore up our cod supplies?

- We've been through this before. Earth has its own problems with cod depletion in all of our oceans.

- Oh pleeeeease.

- What do you propose to exchange for these cod?

- Errrr... what would you like, Mr President?

- You have nothing we want, Mars.

- Charity then? Throw a young imp of a planet a bone?

- No. You should have thought about that before you declared independence. Good day.

- But...

- I said "good day" Sir.

 

 

The escape velocity on the moons is not as high as that on Earth or on Mars. Blasting off on a moon as small as the ones around Mars will take a lot less fuel and will be cheaper. I think what you are thinking of is the difficulty of putting a rocket in orbit around the moons, in which the difficulty lies with the fact that the shape is irregular.

Yes, as opposed to the difficulties of landing on a moon, setting up a low-gravity drilling rig, extracting the required ores (which may not even be there - organically derived ones sure as hell won't), getting it back to Mars, and refining it.

 

As for petroleum products, I'm not sure that the people on Mars would need to manufacture them in any case.

Yes, they probably won't want drugs or sanitary products.

 

The US, for example, gets the raw material from the Middle East. I'm sure that Martian colonies could set up some sort of trading system.

Exactly what we are saying. Hence not self-sufficient and not a good idea to go about claiming independence.

 

 

I may have unintentionally implied this, but I did not say that it would take place overnight. I was just responding to the fact that you guys are assuming that you need to take everything with you for colonization. However, I have pointed out how colonization can be sustainable without the need to import everything from Earth nor would they need to terraform right away.

No, we are not making the case that you need to take everything with you for colonisation (although it would certainly help!)

We are making the case that - as I stated several posts ago, and you disputed without reasoning or evidence - a Martian civilisation would always require imports from Earth. It is not the same thing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think a requirement to claiming independence is self-sufficiency, at any rate. Claiming political independence is different from claiming total independence.

 

I hardly think, however, that regular trade between Mars and Earth would something that could occur without the direct intervention of a very wealthy Earth government. Mars has practically no raw materials to export - they are all materials available on Earth for cheap (you must consider the transportation costs) - and it would require vast quantities of raw materials for very many years, until it could start supplying itself at least the basics for planetary life. Regular trade would simply not work. Mars would run out of money without dependence on an Earth country to provide free aid.

 

So at any rate, while Mars could claim political independence, it would still be dependent on some Earth nation that would essentially be able to run Mars anyway. "Yeah, we need several million more tons of high-grade iron, Mr. President." "I'm sorry, you won't get any until you solve that Martian warthog crisis and grant them civil rights."

[Sayonara]

I don't think a requirement to claiming independence is self-sufficiency, at any rate. Claiming political independence is different from claiming total independence.

Well quite.

 

But the difference between the Martian situation and any other declaration of independence that we have ever heard of is that all those other societies had alternative avenues to explore.

 

Mars will never be in a position where they can afford to risk their import sources (and bear in mind that "import" refers to information, genetic stock, and humanitarian aid, as well as material commodities), and therefore they will never be able to stand alone politically.

[Sayonara]

- Earth, it's Mars again. The chimps have arrived and... well... they brought guns. We didn't think of that. Can we have some of yours?

- Mars, this is Earth. The affairs of other sovereign states are not our concern. Good day.

[MolotovCocktail]

 

 

 

No, we are not making the case that you need to take everything with you for colonisation (although it would certainly help!)

We are making the case that - as I stated several posts ago, and you disputed without reasoning or evidence - a Martian civilisation would always require imports from Earth. It is not the same thing.

 

What are you talking about? You did not just merely claim that it would always require imports, you were implying that it would never be able to sustain itself independently from Earth, right here:

 

Sayonara³"][/b]

- Earth has material commodities which Mars will require' date=' however the reverse is not the case.

- Mars will not have, and almost certainly will never have, large-scale disaster relief facilities.

- Even a terraformed Mars will require regular organic and chemical donations from Earth in order to maintain a healthy biome.

- Without expert skills from Earth, Mars will have to predict social and technological requirements a generation in advance, and plan schooling on that basis. God forbid they should ever have to cope with the unexpected.

- Without academic input from Earth, Mars will have to conduct its own research (this could be considered covered by the commodities point, but I disagree that they are the same thing).

[/quote']

 

I know that it will need imports of some kind (and so will Earth), but the way you stated this, you are making it seem like it needs Earth for it to function by itself when in fact it does not. You are not only implying that, but you are also claiming that it would never be able to develop the means to do so.

 

I never stated that it would never need imports, I was just simply listing ways that it can be sustainable and develop its own industry and raw materials.

[Sayonara]

What are you talking about? You did not just merely claim that it would always require imports, you were implying that it would never be independent from Earth, right here:

Yes, that is right.

 

What I just disagreed with was your claim that "you guys are assuming that you need to take everything with you for colonization".

 

I know that it will need imports of some kind (and so will Earth)

Errr... in what way will Earth "need imports"?

 

but the way you stated this, you are making it seem like it needs Earth for it to function by itself when in fact it does not.

You say "in fact", but you do not show why this is a fact. I have provided many good reasons why Mars will need Earth, and you have failed to address the vast majority of them.

 

You are not only implying that, but you are also claiming that it would never be able to develop the means to do so.

And rightly so, for the reasons I already stated, and the hundeds (if not thousands) I didn't think of.

 

I never stated that it would never need imports, I was just simply listing ways that it can be sustainable and develop its own industry and raw materials.

As I am sure they will. But they will never duplicate Earth, and they will never surpass Earth, unless Earth actively engages in a concerted effort to achieve such events.

[Phi for All]

I know that it will need imports of some kind (and so will Earth), but the way you stated this, you are making it seem like it needs Earth for it to function by itself when in fact it does not.

I suppose a very Spartan self-sufficiency could be achieved but you would still need a very large colony to extract and process materials to manufacture a broad range of technological necessities eventually.

I never stated that it would never need imports, I was just simply listing ways that it can be sustainable and develop its own industry and raw materials.

Imports being trade and therefore not damaging to the self-sufficient model, is that the deal? You'd still need something to trade. Mars rocks at $5000 each will only be popular for so long (eventually knock-off Moon rocks will ruin the market).

 

As far as a Mars colony being eventually self-sufficient, I'm still somewhere between your 50 years and Sayonara³'s "never". I don't like your idea that total independence could happen that quickly in a colony that is most likely research-based and would require the absolute bleeding edge in Earth technology. And I don't like Sayonara³'s idea that Blair would be Earth President.

[Sayonara]

And I don't like Sayonara³'s idea that Blair would be Earth President.

It's actually a chimp. The name is coincidental.

 

Or is it?

[Comandante]

This is not a very helpful analogy. The technology required to physically get to Mars is not beyond us, in fact it is now dated by several decades. It doesn't have to be "whooooosh, and we're there", it only has to work. Perhaps we cannot warp a cityship to Mars in under half a second, but we can actually go there if we decide to invest the resources. This is more than the Alliance of Chimp Nations will be doing any time soon.

 

Perhaps you failed to notice, there were two words there: "space travel" in which I was referring to our space travel in general, not only 'space travel technology required to reach Mars'.

 

We are making the case that - as I stated several posts ago, and you disputed without reasoning or evidence - a Martian civilisation would always require imports from Earth. It is not the same thing.

 

This case you are making has a limited time domain for some reason. It is logically deducible that there will be a time when Mars will no longer need resources from Earth for its survival (excluding any luxurious resources they would possibly want to import from Earth for the same reason France imports bananas from Spain today). This can be deduced from the fact that technology is ever advancing and if you extrapolate it from the domain of say.. from 1235 to 2007, even though you probably won't predict exactly the "slope of advance", you will know(predict) that the "slope" will be upwards (or positive).

 

And so while we may not know what the technology will be able to do we are very confident to say that things such as conversion of energy from one form to another will be greatly advanced in the future years, to the point where Martians will no longer need resources from Earth for its survival. Surely 50 years is a very short time, but infinity in your case is only assuming any of the two things: the rate of advance of technology will drop to zero, OR, the time domain for the existence of habitable Mars will not be large enough for the technology to reach the level sufficient to allow for Mars' self-sufficiency. The latter may be likely but I’m sure the technology will reach that level well before our Sun runs out.

[Sayonara]

Perhaps you failed to notice, there were two words there: "space travel" in which I was referring to our space travel in general, not only 'space travel technology required to reach Mars'.

Yes, but you made the statement in a dispute with the context of chimps and humans having the capacity to reach Mars (or, as applicable, failing to have that capacity). In direct reply to someone who was discussing the "space travel mastery" of chimps vis-à-vis reaching Mars.

 

If we are going to discuss the state of human space travel technology in general, surely that is a whole other thread?

 

 

This case you are making has a limited time domain for some reason. It is logically deducible that there will be a time when Mars will no longer need resources from Earth for its survival (excluding any luxurious resources they would possibly want to import from Earth for the same reason France imports bananas from Spain today).

I don't believe time is the limiting factor, and I'd be impressed if you can show evidence that it is.

 

The limiting factor is, in my opinion, the cold hard fact that Earth has resources that Mars will need and cannot duplicate. And it always will.

 

And assume Earth gives Mars everything they need on a continuous basis (which is unlikely, but go with it). Even fully terraformed, with a human population living in the open and safely between the sustainability threshold and the carrying capacity, compared to Earth Mars will always be a second-rate planet struggling to achieve goals that are ridiculously far beyond it. That being said, I am sure there will be some novel products and thoughts, after all these are usually generated wherever you see adaptations and the Martians will certainly be doing a lot of adaptation.

 

(Oddly enough, this may be where the Martians find a commodity that they can use in trade with Earth. Mars-inspired technology may be useful to certain kinds of researchers, for instance. And there will doubtless be a market for Martian literature and art.)

 

The notion of Mars as a thriving planet that independently produces thinkers and technology to rival those of Earth or any other Imperium world is - I'm sad to say - far more romantic than it is realistic.

 

Getting back to the point though, I would like to see the logical deduction that Mars can be freed from resource demands on Earth in action. Essentially, I ask this because it directly opposes the logical deduction that Mars cannot be freed from a resource requirement scenario in which it requires resources that it cannot produce itself. Like plutonium, for example. Or the latest cancer research findings. Or the specialised machinery required to fabricate all the novel materials that good old Earth science comes up with after Colony 1 leaves for Mars.

 

Please also remember that information is a limiting resource, and this includes education, industrial/engineering specifications, scientific findings, and so on. Although some nations do currently duplicate effort in these areas, the Martians will have such (literally) other-wordly pressures on them as to make that kind of behaviour a highly wasteful luxury.

 

This can be deduced from the fact that technology is ever advancing and if you extrapolate it from the domain of say.. from 1235 to 2007, even though you probably won't predict exactly the "slope of advance", you will know(predict) that the "slope" will be upwards (or positive).

The advance of society might be linked to resources and information, but it doesn't guarantee their availability. You can't extrapolate your way to things that just aren't there.

 

And so while we may not know what the technology will be able to do we are very confident to say that things such as conversion of energy from one form to another will be greatly advanced in the future years, to the point where Martians will no longer need resources from Earth for its survival.

It seems to me that you have omitted all actual reasoning, and simply stated what you would like to believe. This would appear to be at odds with your intention for this thread, since you asked us about the sociopolitical dynamics of a colonised Mars and that is what I am trying to discuss.

 

If you disagree, fine, but it seems disingenuous that you would simply state vague conclusions supported by a paragraph of pseudo-waffle, instead of refuting the highly visible arguments I have made.

 

"We cannot predict technological advances therefore technology will bridge the resource gap" simply won't do.

 

I also fail to see the logic in bridging a resource gap by invoking advances in energy conversion technology, the research and development of which surely would be one of the first casualties of said gap.

Note that "Earth can give us the technology" is, in itself, a resource dependence.

 

Surely 50 years is a very short time, but infinity in your case is only assuming any of the two things: the rate of advance of technology will drop to zero, OR, the time domain for the existence of habitable Mars will not be large enough for the technology to reach the level sufficient to allow for Mars' self-sufficiency. The latter may be likely but I’m sure the technology will reach that level well before our Sun runs out.

You being sure is as valid an argument as "infinity" is a valid time period.

 

In any case, over such long time scales as the ones you are proposing, it is far more likely that social pressures will avert independence and possibly even subvert self-sufficiency. This is, of course, assuming no disaster befalls the Martians (let's not forget the chances of this increase within an increased time period).

[Sayonara]

By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that the arguments we are having here would very likely drive cohesive forces between a cluster of Martian societies?

[Comandante]

Yes, but you made the statement in a dispute with the context of chimps and humans having the capacity to reach Mars (or, as applicable, failing to have that capacity). In direct reply to someone who was discussing the "space travel mastery" of chimps vis-à-vis reaching Mars.

 

That is usually the case but not necessarily, I was making a side-comment in relation to space travel which may or may not have anything to do with Mars.

 

There have been many side comments in this thread and as you pointed out, I tried to leave science out of it but as it seems it just doesn't work that way since science seems to be limiting factor in our discussion.

 

I don't believe time is the limiting factor, and I'd be impressed if you can show evidence that it is.

 

The limiting factor is, in my opinion, the cold hard fact that Earth has resources that Mars will need and cannot duplicate. And it always will.

 

And assume Earth gives Mars everything they need on a continuous basis (which is unlikely, but go with it). Even fully terraformed, with a human population living in the open and safely between the sustainability threshold and the carrying capacity, compared to Earth Mars will always be a second-rate planet struggling to achieve goals that are ridiculously far beyond it. That being said, I am sure there will be some novel products and thoughts, after all these are usually generated wherever you see adaptations and the Martians will certainly be doing a lot of adaptation.

 

(Oddly enough, this may be where the Martians find a commodity that they can use in trade with Earth. Mars-inspired technology may be useful to certain kinds of researchers, for instance. And there will doubtless be a market for Martian literature and art.)

 

It seems as if you've forgotten that this isn't happening today, tomorrow or any time soon. Lets use our imagination for a moment and say what could be some of the products/materials that Martians will not be able to make for themselves? What are the limiting factors that will disallow for these products to be made? Name me one example that you think might be of interest and we'll examine it. (apart from very heavy elements such as Plutonium, Uranium and others which will probably see no use for the Martians after a certain time period)

 

Getting back to the point though, I would like to see the logical deduction that Mars can be freed from resource demands on Earth in action. Essentially, I ask this because it directly opposes the logical deduction that Mars cannot be freed from a resource requirement scenario in which it requires resources that it cannot produce itself. Like plutonium, for example. Or the latest cancer research findings. Or the specialised machinery required to fabricate all the novel materials that good old Earth science comes up with after Colony 1 leaves for Mars.

 

Please also remember that information is a limiting resource, and this includes education, industrial/engineering specifications, scientific findings, and so on. Although some nations do currently duplicate effort in these areas, the Martians will have such (literally) other-wordly pressures on them as to make that kind of behaviour a highly wasteful luxury.

 

Ok, here's logical deduction; In the initial stages of colonization of Mars, and some time afterwards, Mars will be highly dependent on Earth and its resources, including material and informational goods - everything as you stated - until it reaches a certain point (perhaps even a point of our current state on Earth; we're not dependant on any other planet are we?). The reason being is that after a certain time period Mars will be up-to-date with all the information Earth has to offer, let every book be copied and reproduced on Mars including all the research findings. Let the technology advance to a level at which Mars will be able to make anything we can (will be able to) make on Earth at that same time. AT that point lets cut ALL communication between Earth and Mars and ask ourselves this question: Is Mars going to be able to survive on its own? Clearly Mars will not have access to our latest cancer research but that doesn't mean every person on Mars will die from cancer. Clearly Mars will not have any imports from Earth but do we have any imports from other planets? (True; we have resources on Earth so we don't need imports, but Mars will be able to make those resources with the help of technology) If you see what I'm getting at, even if Earth's technology advances much rapidly than that of Mars, Mars will still be able to survive. No input from Earth would be necessary. I never said any of this would happen soon, but it would happen eventually.

 

You pointed out that Mars will have enough of its own problems too, but these problems are unlikely to cause Mars to "die". We have our own problems on Earth too but we haven't died yet, though it gets close sometimes.

 

 

The advance of society might be linked to resources and information, but it doesn't guarantee their availability. You can't extrapolate your way to things that just aren't there.

 

I'm sure you've heard that a different element can be made from two other elements by the means of nuclear fusion. This is very primitive but it follows that after a certain time period it would be possible to make almost any required element from the elements you have available. Since this is far beyond you or me we won't go deeply into the science of it but it's good to acknowledge that it is possible. That way we can extrapolate our tech tree to things that aren't there, it's the main principle of science-fiction - and as you may know a lot of useful advances have been made directly from the ideas developed in science-fiction itself.

 

 

It seems to me that you have omitted all actual reasoning, and simply stated what you would like to believe. This would appear to be at odds with your intention for this thread, since you asked us about the sociopolitical dynamics of a colonised Mars and that is what I am trying to discuss.

 

If you disagree, fine, but it seems disingenuous that you would simply state vague conclusions supported by a paragraph of pseudo-waffle, instead of refuting the highly visible arguments I have made.

 

I believe that is not correct. My reasoning was contained in my philosophy, it's just that you failed to extract it from there, which is ok since I reasoned myself in my responses above.

Also, as I said, I tried to leave science out of it, however this thread has diverted to science long before this, or my last post. At the back of my mind I still hold the question of how and who will share Mars amongst who and when...

 

Note that "Earth can give us the technology" is, in itself, a resource dependence.

 

You make a valid point but as I explained above, Earth does not need to give Mars the technology forever.

 

 

You being sure is as valid an argument as "infinity" is a valid time period.

 

In any case, over such long time scales as the ones you are proposing, it is far more likely that social pressures will avert independence and possibly even subvert self-sufficiency. This is, of course, assuming no disaster befalls the Martians (let's not forget the chances of this increase within an increased time period).

 

Me being sure is perhaps a bit wrong of an expression, what I should've really said is that I have high confidence that technology will reach the required level.

 

By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that the arguments we are having here would very likely drive cohesive forces between a cluster of Martian societies?

 

Good point.

[SkepticLance]

Self sufficiency on Mars.

 

Mars will have to be 99% self sufficient in very short order. It is economically untenable to import more than the tiniest items from Earth. The cost per kg for transport is overwhelmingly costly.

 

The very first long term colonies on Mars will work like hell to make themselves largely self sufficient. This does not, of course, mean having everything we have on Earth. The colonists will have to substitute, and just plain do without. Medicines? Tough. You get sick, you die!

 

There is, of course, no reason to suspect that Mars is short of vital elements such as uranium. Why should it be? Any element Earth has, should also exist on Mars. The problem will be that the first colonists will not be able to travel over the planet in search of said items.

 

We already know that Mars has lots of iron oxide. This can be used to make iron and oxygen, if sufficient energy is available. ie. a nuclear reactor, which will have to be imported. It may be that, initially, pretty much everything on Mars will be made from the plentiful iron.

 

The first Mars colonies will probably be underground. Reason : to avoid the lethal radiation sleeting down through the thin Martian atmosphere. In that underground labyrinth, there will be areas set aside to grow plants for food and oxygen.

 

The one thing that can readily be imported from Earth at almost zero cost is information. That will be the biggest asset. Templates for manufacture will permit a wide range of items to be made on site. There are already 3D 'ink jet' type manufacturing devices. Feed a template into that device, and it will 'print' the item you need. By the time we set up colonies on Mars, these devices will be very advanced and capable of marvels.

 

In short, from the very first, Mars colonies will be largely self sufficient, for the very strong reason that they have no choice.

[Sayonara]

That is usually the case but not necessarily, I was making a side-comment in relation to space travel which may or may not have anything to do with Mars.

There have been many side comments in this thread and as you pointed out, I tried to leave science out of it but as it seems it just doesn't work that way since science seems to be limiting factor in our discussion.

Fair enough. I don't suppose the chimp factor is relevant anyway

 

It seems as if you've forgotten that this isn't happening today, tomorrow or any time soon. Lets use our imagination for a moment and say what could be some of the products/materials that Martians will not be able to make for themselves?

I have not forgotten. I think the difference between us is that my appreciation of the Martian requirements has a much broader scope than yours. Or at least, enough of a difference in scope for us to draw very different conclusions.

 

I have already named several products and materials. I am sure I could name more, but since no list I produce will be exhaustive, what is the point?

 

Also, there is little point in me adding more examples until all the ones I have provided have been adequately refuted.

 

What are the limiting factors that will disallow for these products to be made?

Clearly the limiting factors will vary by example. It is not feasible to send every kind of available fabrication technology to Mars with the colonists, and by implication they cannot build every kind of fabrication technology as the need arises.

 

The remaining option is a supply of new technologies from Earth.

 

Name me one example that you think might be of interest and we'll examine it.

What would that achieve? Any example I give you that you do manage to refute can be replaced with a dozen more. Okay, fine: let's go with saltpeter. That's going to be very handy for an emergent colony, and has various applications which could make it useful to a terraforming project. Not to mention fuel and propulsion.

 

(apart from very heavy elements such as Plutonium, Uranium and others which will probably see no use for the Martians after a certain time period)

Except in powering your advanced Martians' nuclear fusion device, and any other technologies one cares to imagine.

 

You can't just toss aside examples because they are difficult to get around.

 

Ok, here's logical deduction; In the initial stages of colonization of Mars, and some time afterwards, Mars will be highly dependent on Earth and its resources, including material and informational goods - everything as you stated - until it reaches a certain point (perhaps even a point of our current state on Earth; we're not dependant on any other planet are we?).

No, Earth is not dependent on other planets. But Earth and Mars are not alike, and it is my belief that they never will be. Even allowing endless resources and technologies, the conditions on Mars are not conducive to producing Earth-like societies. A Martian population will invest much of its man hours in maintaining a hospitable environment, even after terraforming.

 

The reason being is that after a certain time period Mars will be up-to-date with all the information Earth has to offer, let every book be copied and reproduced on Mars including all the research findings.

Unless Earth stops producing new information, that cannot happen.

 

Let the technology advance to a level at which Mars will be able to make anything we can (will be able to) make on Earth at that same time.

Conceivably this scenario could occur, but it will always go hand-in-hand with import requests.

 

You also have to consider the economics of the situation - just because Mars can theoretically achieve something, it does not mean that the government will allow the investment. Earth already suffers from this developmental blockage, and we are a developed world (relatively speaking, of course).

 

AT that point lets cut ALL communication between Earth and Mars and ask ourselves this question: Is Mars going to be able to survive on its own?

I am not sure that point can be reached, however I will go with it for the sake of argument.

 

What you are proposing here is isolationism rather than independence, which is a lot harder to maintain. You will have a planetary rebellion on your hands if you sever all familial, social, and business ties between Mars and Earth.

 

Basically, you are proposing North Korea. Yes, they survive, but they are stagnant, and their survival is delicately precipitated upon the government cheekily purchasing technology and information on the black market and smuggling it under their own embargo. If you believe half of what comes out of North Korea you really have to wonder if "survival" is the appropriate term.

 

I feel that in asking whether or not Mars will survive, you are moving the goalposts somewhat to make my job harder. When I proposed that a Martian civilisation would not risk declaring political independence on the basis of their resource requirements, I was referring to a decision that would protect the Martian ability to thrive and develop.

 

If they are simply to "survive" then the arguments will have to change. It would also help if the population dynamics qualifying for survival were stated. Does Mars not expect to grow? If they do, what are the tolerances for adaptation?

 

Clearly Mars will not have access to our latest cancer research but that doesn't mean every person on Mars will die from cancer.

No, it doesn't. But it does mean avoidable mortality in a population where individuals have a vastly higher value to society than they do on Earth.

 

Also, (i) cancer is not the only human affliction, and (ii) Mars is unlikely to generate as many new cures and treatments as Earth, nor produce them within comparative time-scales.

 

Clearly Mars will not have any imports from Earth but do we have any imports from other planets?

As I stated earlier, this comparison is fairly meaningless, seeing as Mars has the resource deficit and Earth has the resource surplus.

 

I remind you that by "resource" I mean all commodities, including intelligence.

 

(True; we have resources on Earth so we don't need imports, but Mars will be able to make those resources with the help of technology)

 

But there is this massive gap still.

 

You seem to be proposing this:

 

MARS PLAN:

 

1) Colonise Mars

 

2) Mysterious happenings

 

3) Advanced technology now achieved!

 

4) Do what we like

 

It's that step (2) that bothers me. If you can't even produce thermoplastics as and when you need them, then you are unlikely to be able to build machines that can -- to use your own example -- reorganise matter.

 

If you see what I'm getting at, even if Earth's technology advances much rapidly than that of Mars, Mars will still be able to survive. No input from Earth would be necessary. I never said any of this would happen soon, but it would happen eventually. You pointed out that Mars will have enough of its own problems too, but these problems are unlikely to cause Mars to "die".

See the 'moving the goalposts' bit.

 

Survival of a terraformed Mars without Earth's assistance is possible, but you would be looking at major mortality from any number of factors, not the least of which would be civil unrest. I would hardly call this a good result, and it is a far cry from a thriving and developing planet that stands on its own two feet.

 

Survival of a pre-terraformed Mars without Earth's assistance is highly improbable. But also, Mars does not have to "die" to be a failed project.

 

We have our own problems on Earth too but we haven't died yet, though it gets close sometimes.

We do not face the challenges that anyone might reasonably expect the Martians to face.

And need I point out, all of your arguments concerning an advanced Martian society hinge on the assumption that the society will survive and develop for that long, which is by no means certain.

 

I'm sure you've heard that a different element can be made from two other elements by the means of nuclear fusion. This is very primitive but it follows that after a certain time period it would be possible to make almost any required element from the elements you have available. Since this is far beyond you or me we won't go deeply into the science of it but it's good to acknowledge that it is possible.

Yes, it is possible. It's also possible that the original Martians left a powered matter re-organiser behind on the planet before they left, which will be handy because the human colony sure as hell won't survive long enough to design and build one.

 

On the other hand, it is also possible that they will learn to eat rocks and drink dust, which will get rid of many many problems.

 

That way we can extrapolate our tech tree to things that aren't there, it's the main principle of science-fiction - and as you may know a lot of useful advances have been made directly from the ideas developed in science-fiction itself.

I think "fiction" is the key term here. You have hit the nail on the head.

 

The problem with extrapolation is precisely that it leads you to things that aren't there. Don't rely on an imaginary developmental path unless you have adequate evidence to support it.

 

While it is true that many useful advances have their roots in science fiction, it does not follow that any fictional piece of technology is a candidate for a working, real-world counterpart. For one thing, it might rely on processes that defy the laws of physics. Other concerns are that it might not be economically viable (a major concern for a limited province like Mars), it could require more energy than is available, or it might simply -- gasp -- require resources or manufacturing techniques that are just not there.

 

I believe that is not correct. My reasoning was contained in my philosophy, it's just that you failed to extract it from there, which is ok since I reasoned myself in my responses above. Also, as I said, I tried to leave science out of it, however this thread has diverted to science long before this, or my last post.

I should not have to extract anything, but then if it was the same point that you have explained above it doesn't really matter now. I don't really see how leaving the science out can possibly help any of us

 

At the back of my mind I still hold the question of how and who will share Mars amongst who and when...

Clearly the Martians are going to have a unique and diverse set of challenges, at least we can agree on that!

 

You make a valid point but as I explained above, Earth does not need to give Mars the technology forever.

And as I explained above, only if Earth stops all innovation.

 

Earth is hardly likely to rush every single one of the latest inventions over to Mars when they can keep the colony dependent by slow-bleeding technology to them.

 

Mars is always going to be two steps behind, unless they devote a massive amount of man hours to the parallel pursuit of all academic fields with more fervour than the equivalent man hour allotment on Earth. Which really, really, really won't ever happen. Ridding yourself of a minor dependence is simply not worth planetary disruption.

 

Me being sure is perhaps a bit wrong of an expression, what I should've really said is that I have high confidence that technology will reach the required level.

I am not trying to be pedantic or anything, but isn't having "high confidence" the same as being sure?

[Sayonara]

Self sufficiency on Mars.

 

Mars will have to be 99% self sufficient in very short order. It is economically untenable to import more than the tiniest items from Earth. The cost per kg for transport is overwhelmingly costly.

 

... etc

I think you have somewhat missed the points. Full marks for optimism though.

[Comandante]

I have already named several. I am sure I could name more, but since no list I produce will be exhaustive, what is the point?

Also, there is little point in me adding more examples until all the ones I have provided have been adequately refuted.

 

I'm having trouble finding those examples, are these the ones you're referring to?:

 

Like plutonium, for example. Or the latest cancer research findings. Or the specialised machinery required to fabricate all the novel materials that good old Earth science comes up with after Colony 1 leaves for Mars.

 

Please also remember that information is a limiting resource, and this includes education, industrial/engineering specifications, scientific findings, and so on.

 

If so then I've already refuted those. Plutonium won't be necessary as they probably won't need to make any weapons or nuclear reactors that would use plutonium. They are more likely to use cold fusion or lots of hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells (or something else along those lines). Latest cancer research is not necessary and your point that this will result in high fertility implies that there will be high incidence of cancer on Mars? On Earth there is a lot cancer patients because we have a big population and practice bad habbits, Mars' population will probably have somewhat proportional number of cancer patients. It mightn't be cancer, it could be something else, we can't know, but the point remains. As long as the situation stabilizes on Mars to the point to which I referred earlier, no import from Earth would be necessary.

 

Education and industrial/engineering specifications can all be reproduced on Mars from the available information previously imported from Earth. There might be some adjustments due to different materials available, gravity constant, magnetic fields etc but that will all probably be studied by Martians themselves.

 

Also notice how you said:

specialised machinery required to fabricate all the novel materials that good old Earth science comes up with after Colony 1 leaves for Mars.

This somewhat suggests that you're still thinking to high temporal proximity within the early days of colonization. I don't see how Mars would be unable to 'catch-up' to be up-to-date with Earth with technology at certain point of time, or if you wanna say, to certain point of time at which Earth will be 6 months ahead, or let's even make it 2 years ahead, it doesn't even have to catch up with Earth exactly, it can catch up with Earth's technology so that it's 6 months behind for example. We can cut the communication then and let the Martians work they way around things.

 

 

Clearly the limiting factors will vary by example. It is not feasible to send every kind of available fabrication technology to Mars with the colonists, and by implication they cannot build every kind of fabrication technology as the need arises.

 

The remaining option is a supply of new technologies from Earth.

 

Their needs will be proportional to their size. One small factory on Mars can be enough to make clothes for entire Martian civilization. As their size grows they will have more people to work on production of materials and will then be able to make more factories to suit their needs which is pretty much a 'positive feedback system'.

 

In case of very essential things like medicines and such, again, one pharmacy might be enough. They will have the ability to synthesize wide range of things pretty much the same way we do on Earth. The chemicals and materials required for the production of these things will all be readily producible on Mars at that time.

 

What would that achieve? Any example I give you that you do manage to refute can be replaced with a dozen more. Okay, fine: let's go with saltpeter. That's going to be very handy for an emergent colony, and has various applications which could make it useful to a terraforming project. Not to mention fuel and propulsion.

 

Can you notice that you spoke of "emergent colony" again? Emergent colony might need saltpeter, so let it be so, but an advanced Martian colony will probably see no use of it. On the other hand by the time Mars is terraformed and at the point of time when it is up to date with technology on Earth (or 6 months behind, doesn't matter), Martians will be able to come up with saltpeter if they really want it by the means of advanced nuclear fusion or some other rather "mysterious" as you call it, means of technology.

 

You can't just toss aside examples because they are difficult to get around.

I didn't toss the example because it's difficult to get it but because it will probably not be used or required for Mars' sustainability. As you pointed previously, no example you put forward will probably be of interest because by the time Mars is 6 months behind Earth in technology and has stabilized its "Martian situation", it will probably have everything it needs, including enough resources previously imported from Earth for the production of anything that will allow them to survive AND advance.

 

No, Earth is not dependent on other planets. But Earth and Mars are not alike, and it is my belief that they never will be. Even allowing endless resources and technologies, the conditions on Mars are not conducive to producing Earth-like societies. A Martian population will invest much of its man hours in maintaining a hospitable environment, even after terraforming.

 

 

Unless Earth stops producing new information, that cannot happen.

 

What happend there is that you have split my argument into separate pieces and then attacked the validity of each. Pieces of my argument on their own can easily be refuted but together they make a point. What I added after that is that "Mars will be able to make those resources with the help of technology". This is obviously the part you referred to as "mysterious happenings". It's true; I don't know how that will be achieved but by basing my predictions on current scientific findings that leaves us with a high possibility of 'things getting done'.

 

 

Conceivably this scenario could occur, but it will always go hand-in-hand with import requests.

You also have to consider the economics of the situation - just because Mars can theoretically achieve something, it does not mean that the government will allow the investment. Earth already suffers from this developmental blockage, and we are a developed world (relatively speaking, of course).

 

I am not sure that point can be reached, however I will go with it for the sake of argument.

 

What you are proposing here is isolationism rather than independence, which is a lot harder to maintain. You will have a planetary rebellion on your hands if you sever all familial, social, and business ties between Mars and Earth.

 

The point can be reached, as I explained, Mars doesn't have to be EXACTLY in phase with Earth, but even 6 months behind is fine, or even a year or two. On such a huge timescale as to which I'm referring to, one year is almost meaningless.

 

I am proposing both independence and isolationism (for the purpose of the argument of course, since isolationism is unlikely to happen). I was just using isolation to show you that at certain point Mars will not need any connections with Earth, while you continously strive to suggest the opposite. I think that our main line of confusion here is the time-frame. You are referring to a much smaller time frame and so are unwilling to "accept" the "mysterious happenings" in science that have "high confidence" of occuring during my great time period.

 

I feel that in asking whether or not Mars will survive, you are moving the goalposts somewhat to make my job harder. When I proposed that a Martian civilisation would not risk declaring political independence on the basis of their resource requirements, I was referring to a decision that would protect the Martian ability to thrive and develop.

 

If they are simply to "survive" then the arguments will have to change. It would also help if the population dynamics qualifying for survival were stated. Does Mars not expect to grow? If they do, what are the tolerances for adaptation?

 

I find it amusing how is it that from the sharing of Mars we came to such a question as the "survival of Mars". In order for Mars to be able to survive AND advance and for all the Martians to live a happy and wonderful life, the colonization of Mars must be planned ahead very carefully and the size of the colonization must be kept small enough so that the "point of equivalence - the point I was referring to when I spoke of technologically advanced Mars with 'stable situation'" can be reached relatively quickly.

 

 

No, it doesn't. But it does mean avoidable mortality in a population where individuals have a vastly higher value to society than they do on Earth.

 

Also, (i) cancer is not the only human affliction, and (ii) Mars is unlikely to generate as many new cures and treatments as Earth, nor produce them within comparative time-scales.

 

Again, as I said, smaller population size means less patiens per disease. The birth rate on Mars will probably allow for positive population change, or increase in population. This increase will gradually result in greater resource requirement which will again be balanced by higher available workforce. Positive feedback system.

 

But there is this massive gap still.

 

You seem to be proposing this:

MARS PLAN:

1) Colonise Mars

2) Mysterious happenings

3) Advanced technology now achieved!

4) Do what we like

 

It's that step (2) that bothers me. If you can't even produce thermoplastics as and when you need them, then you are unlikely to be able to build machines that can -- to use your own example -- reorganise matter.

 

Already explained, you are looking at it too much from a practical side of things. Considering the time interval I'm referring to you can't really relate things to production of thermoplastics or anything else along those lines. While I may not be sure how exactly the problem will be overcome (step number 2 in that MARS PLAN thing ) I have high confidence that the problem will be overcome by the time it comes to that. The massive gap you speak of is exactly the gap that is between our arguments, namely the time gap! You refuse to believe that anything important will happen in a time period of say... let's make it 50,000 years, while all scientific evidence suggests otherwise! Of course I don't know how the problems will be solved, you may be right in that, but I have a valid vision based on scientific evidence.

 

See the 'moving the goalposts' bit.

 

Survival of a terraformed Mars without Earth's assistance is possible, but you would be looking at major mortality from any number of factors, not the least of which would be civil unrest. I would hardly call this a good result, and it is a far cry from a thriving and developing planet that stands on its own two feet.

 

Survival of a pre-terraformed Mars without Earth's assistance is highly improbable.

 

I don't recall me saying that pre-terraformed Mars would survive without Earth's assistance, in fact, I was saying exactly the opposite! Mars will need help from Earth until the situation stabilizes, majority of essential problems are solved and all the necessary apparatus required for a 'decent life' on a planet is assembled, including every important scientific finding reproduced on Mars (again 6 months behind is not a problem). That is the point at which Mars would be able to survive and advance from then on without Earth's help.

 

We do not face the challenges that anyone might reasonably expect the Martians to face.

And need I point out, all of your arguments concerning an advanced Martian society hinge on the assumption that the society will survive and develop for that long, which is by no means certain.

 

Obviously Martians will have a tough time, no doubt about that, but provided the help from Earth there is a medium to high confidence that the society will indeed survive and develop.

 

On the other hand, it is also possible that they will learn to eat rocks and drink dust, which will get rid of many many problems.

 

 

I think "fiction" is the key term here. You have hit the nail on the head.

 

The problem with extrapolation is precisely that it leads you to things that aren't there. Don't rely on an imaginary developmental path unless you have adequate evidence to support it.

 

Well, lets take some 3000 years of human development, that might be a small time for extrapolation to the 50,000 years mark, but it's the only available data that we can work with, especially that the past 1000 years or so have seen exponential growth in a lot of things. It's true there have been humans loong time before that but there isn't really much data to work with. From that you can see that there is a high confidence of technological advance well beyond our current understanding.

 

While it is true that many useful advances have their roots in science fiction, it does not follow that any fictional piece of technology is a candidate for a working, real-world counterpart.

 

Nobody said it was, but there is a medium to high confidence.

 

Clearly the Martians are going to have a unique and diverse set of challenges, at least we can agree on that!

 

Indeed. Speaking of which I don't think it's going to be easy to find candidates to be first Martian colonists unless the plan is laid down perfectly.

 

I am not trying to be pedantic or anything, but isn't having "high confidence" the same as being sure?

 

 

I think we need some sociologists in here.

 

Being sure may imply that I am 99.9999% certain while having high confidence can imply being 90% certain. Dont' know exactly the meaning of both but high confidence is more proper term to use.

[Comandante]

I think you have somewhat missed the points. Full marks for optimism though.

 

He may have missed the point you and I were discussing but his point is equally as valid on its own. Mars has a lot of resources that will need to be used in the future and will only be possible to use those by the means of technologically advanced apparatus. SkepticLance's post is based on an early point in the timeframe.