Mars: One Way

[glatt]

hi rez image here:

http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/images...32436_1755.jpg

[BigV]

it sure looks burned, doesn't it?

also, there are a couple more blue dot/spots, probably part of the landing apparatus.

[it]

So I noticed this thread hasn't gotten resurrected since it was revealed that the Mars One program was a scam, either by intent or by degrading into one once things started to not go their way.

This to me bags the unfortunate question.... How do you - realistically - establish a mars colonization effort?

On the surface, it's very easy to think of colonizing space as easy as it was to colonize the new world. There are a lot of problems with that notion.
For one thing, anything you can find on mars is cheaper to mine or produce on earth then it is to fly it from mars to earth. There is no way to make a profit or even pay for the trip by trade in resources. Going to mars would have to be entirely financed by the fair tickets themselves - by people who's life goal is to go to mars.
And for most of the time, they are going to have to be wealthy people, even if you manage to cut own the trip costs, because self-sustainability is going to be remarkably more difficult. If the self-sustaining bar for the new world colonists was getting enough resources to set up a secure camp and start cutting down wood and hunting for food, for mars you would need a multitude of mining operations and refining facilities for anything from water to ores just to be able to extend life support. Until then every colonist would need to come along with construction material and resources to sustain them for a life time, and even that is only enough if you are willing to have laws limiting child birth and extremely tough labor conditions of a cottage industrial setup.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Before how, I would question why.

[BigV]

It'd be nice to have a backup planet.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That just makes people treat this one worse.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That just makes people treat this one worse.

Let's take the opposite position then. Do you think people are treating THIS planet better because we don't have a backup planet?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Some are, for their children and children's children, but they are a minority with out any clout. But people worrying about eating tomorrow, have neither the knowledge or resources to do anything but try to survive. Action has to come from the "first world" countries, and we know who has the power there. So in the end, the future is in the hands of a few wealthy people. Until the masses get off their ass, accept science, get politically active, and make the government responsive, it won't happen.

Still, there are a lot of people making small contributions. Like when they started recycling here. There wasn't a lot of grumbling, people in general knew it was a good idea. But when it was discovered that most of the plastic they collected was being burned in the incinerator, a lot of people changed their mind.

[it]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Still, there are a lot of people making small contributions. Like when they started recycling here. There wasn't a lot of grumbling, people in general knew it was a good idea. But when it was discovered that most of the plastic they collected was being burned in the incinerator, a lot of people changed their mind.

See but that's not a contribution, it's reducing damage.

The planet is not better off because they are there and making sure that some of the products that took polluting the air to get to their place and get all the parts together are then getting recycled to not be burned and produce more air pollution. It is only less worst off then if the same people were replaced by those who would have added the extra bit of air pollution at the end to the air pollution they have already financed. That is not healing, it's minimal damage control, if you would imagine a point system, it's not a gain o +3 points, it's a loss of -7 instead of -10. If someone punched you but took a lot of effort and restraint to not punch you harder, you are not better off for their interaction with you, and neither is the planet.

This means that even in the hypothetical scenario where for some reason all the really environment-caring people left earth completely and moved to mars, earth would still get less pollution then it does now from those people over their lifetime.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by BigV

It'd be nice to have a backup planet.

I'd have picked one that hadn't already died at least once. But, there really weren't that many choices, I guess.

[it]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

I'd have picked one that hadn't already died at least once. But, there really weren't that many choices, I guess.

I think we could probably do a better job colonizing Venus then mars, but it would be even harder to gear people to do so. At least Mars already has a following.

[BigV]

I don't agree.

do you treat your tires worse because you carry a spare?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Doesn't apply.

[it]

Even if splitting humanity between two planets might split our "caring per planet", which is possible in some sense - people raised on mars might care very little about earth's ecology - currently a human produces a carbon footprint and pollution a lot more then it produces "care for the planet", in fact almost all of that care - when it's around at all - expresses itself by slightly reducing the disregard and reduce their harm. You would benefit earth more by splitting the harm and sending some of the population there then you would hurt it by splitting the care.

If you mean that people who will still live on earth would otherwise recycle and support any pollution policies or buy less ecologically problematic products, will all of a sudden be ok with it because "Hey it's not like our entire species is in danger, its just our planet"... I think that's seriously underestimating how petty humans are. Can you think of an instance where that's true today in regards to countries, or cities, or... Anything? I work in the call & dispatch center for my city hall, and so far my experience is that most people can't deal with another neighborhood having a slightly geener park.

[it]

One of the most interesting ideas IMO explored on that was in the Red Mars trilogy was a new kind of environmentalism. The idea that there would be people who would fall in love with the aesthetics of mars the same way people fall in love with the aesthetic of nature here, finding it beautiful for what they see around them rather then thinking of it comparatively as a more barren earth, and actually try to preserve it's current state from the formation of an increasingly terraformed ecology threatening it's existence by the people who appose them and want Mars to become more accommodating to human life.

Personally, as someone who's favorite place in nature is the Sinai desert between Israel and Egypt, I can relate to it.