A brave new world

[rikaaim]

Mars is teraformed and ready to be inhabited. We have the means to mass transport the population there. Who goes? Who stays? Is this a chance for the poor to be free? The hungry to eat? The homeless to find shelter? Or is it an opportunity for only those with the money to get off of this rock?

These are some of the questions that a work buddy and I were discussing the other day. We both came to the conclusion that the rich indeed would inherit the world. But it brought up other questions. Would the criminals be forced to stay on Earth? In this scenario we assumed that Mars is just as nice as Earth landscape wise, just a tad chillier.

Ignore the scientific aspects of this for a moent. What do you think would happen from a moral/political/philisophical aspect? Which government would have stake in this? Just the one who funded the most? Would corporations own this project if they flipped the bill?

I think it's interesting to see how a new world would be occupied via means of transporting the current one. I do wonder what would happen.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars series is a wonderful fictional depiction of the terraforming and populating of Mars.

I don't think the questions you pose are quite on target. This will be a hugely expensive undertaking, and the numbers of humans who can ever live on Mars will always be relatively tiny compared to Earth's population. That makes any social issues much more abstract and philosophical, rather than a vital and immediate concern for large segments of the population.

I think of this and more distant projects like building multi-generation ships that will colonize earth-like planets in other solar systems to be more about creating lifeboats for humanity. (Those ships may be little planetoids in themselves - that's how I would do it if I had unlimited fusion [or other] energy, and tech advances like transmutation. I'm thinking in terms of a thousand years and more from now.)

 

[3113]

You're going to need to answer a few questions first: Okay, Mars is terraformed. How much and how well? Are there resources under the surface of value to Earth? Is the weather still horrific--with all those windstorms? It's still more distant from the Sun than Earth, so how do you keep things warm--or is it always freezing? Do people have to live underground?

Also, gravity is less on Mars. If you weigh 100 lbs here on Earth, you weigh only 38 on Mars. Good for people who have trouble walking and supporting their weight, but bad as well. if you stay on Mars you're likely going to lose bone and muscle mass and not be able to ever get it back. So going to colonize Mars is a lifetime decision. Mars folk aren't going to be coming back to Earth very often if at all.

See, these things matter. I'm guessing that however well you terraformed it, it's still a rotten place to live. So why not ship off the undesirables to labor there, especially if it's got resources Earth wants? Earth is still the nicest piece of real estate in the system, even if you make Mars habitable. Likely, those going will be those Earth doesn't want or can get rid of to decrease the surface population, make Earth nicer, and ease up the pressure on our resources. Those and the usual adventurers, scientists, etc.

 

[ms.read]

You're going to need to answer a few questions first: Okay, Mars is terraformed. How much and how well? Are there resources under the surface of value to Earth? Is the weather still horrific--with all those windstorms? It's still more distant from the Sun than Earth, so how do you keep things warm--or is it always freezing? Do people have to live underground?

Also, gravity is less on Mars. If you weigh 100 lbs here on Earth, you weigh only 38 on Mars. Good for people who have trouble walking and supporting their weight, but bad as well. if you stay on Mars you're likely going to lose bone and muscle mass and not be able to ever get it back. So going to colonize Mars is a lifetime decision. Mars folk aren't going to be coming back to Earth very often if at all.

See, these things matter. I'm guessing that however well you terraformed it, it's still a rotten place to live. So why not ship off the undesirables to labor there, especially if it's got resources Earth wants? Earth is still the nicest piece of real estate in the system, even if you make Mars habitable. Likely, those going will be those Earth doesn't want or can get rid of to decrease the surface population, make Earth nicer, and ease up the pressure on our resources. Those and the usual adventurers, scientists, etc.

You are looking at traditional evolutionary thinking here.

Get rid of the incarcerated ( hello immigrants of America, and Australia/New Zealand) see if they can be the first wave to die. If they survive send out some crazy adventurists/ scientific types ... if they survive then homogenize it and move the local hairdressers and artists in.

 

[rikaaim]

You're going to need to answer a few questions first: Okay, Mars is terraformed. How much and how well? Are there resources under the surface of value to Earth? Is the weather still horrific--with all those windstorms? It's still more distant from the Sun than Earth, so how do you keep things warm--or is it always freezing? Do people have to live underground?

Also, gravity is less on Mars. If you weigh 100 lbs here on Earth, you weigh only 38 on Mars. Good for people who have trouble walking and supporting their weight, but bad as well. if you stay on Mars you're likely going to lose bone and muscle mass and not be able to ever get it back. So going to colonize Mars is a lifetime decision. Mars folk aren't going to be coming back to Earth very often if at all.

See, these things matter. I'm guessing that however well you terraformed it, it's still a rotten place to live. So why not ship off the undesirables to labor there, especially if it's got resources Earth wants? Earth is still the nicest piece of real estate in the system, even if you make Mars habitable. Likely, those going will be those Earth doesn't want or can get rid of to decrease the surface population, make Earth nicer, and ease up the pressure on our resources. Those and the usual adventurers, scientists, etc.

Your later paragraph was sorta the part we were trying to figure out. Who goes? Who stays? Do we send the undersirables for labor and gathering skills? Who decides whose undesirable? As you also say, we still need the skilled/educated workers to make things run too.

As for the earlier part of your post, we just sorta avoided the scientific aspect of it for the most part. Our discussion leaned towards social status. You make some great points though. Those with arthritis or a hinderance to be able to walk or move? Go to Mars!

A clarification, we just assumed that Mars has had a few billion years to derive its own ecosystem and natural order to things.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Roxanne actually has the right of it. When (not if) we begin to leave Mama E, it won't be for economic gain because it won't be feasible to climb out one planetary gravity well to ship anything to another. What we will be doing is putting our chicks in different baskets in the event of the eventual planetary catastrophe.

The most recent estimates indicate, though, that those humanly habitable planets will be few and far between and any other intelligent species extremely unlikely. What then, will happen? We will take those hardiest and most adventurous individuals and send them into what will likely prove to be difficult environments to adapt, evolve and eventually thrive as humans have always done at home. In time, about a million years, we will blanket the galaxy.

 

[rikaaim]

Roxanne actually has the right of it. When (not if) we begin to leave Mama E, it won't be for economic gain because it won't be feasible to climb out one planetary gravity well to ship anything to another. What we will be doing is putting our chicks in different baskets in the event of the eventual planetary catastrophe.

The most recent estimates indicate, though, that those humanly habitable planets will be few and far between and any other intelligent species extremely unlikely. What then, will happen? We will take those hardiest and most adventurous individuals and send them into what will likely prove to be difficult environments to adapt, evolve and eventually thrive as humans have always done at home. In time, about a million years, we will blanket the galaxy.

I certainly understand the need to lessen the strain on Earth's resources. I also understand the need to prevent total species wipeout if a global killer were to happen. But is it our duty to also save the other species of this planet being the intelligent race creating the technology to do so? What is the human race's obligation? And who then among the human race becomes in charge of taking care of such matters? Of course a million or so years is quite a bit of time to figure it all out.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I certainly understand the need to lessen the strain on Earth's resources. I also understand the need to prevent total species wipeout if a global killer were to happen. But is it our duty to also save the other species of this planet being the intelligent race creating the technology to do so? What is the human race's obligation? And who then among the human race becomes in charge of taking care of such matters? Of course a million or so years is quite a bit of time to figure it all out.

The general opinion among professional demographers is that the human population will peak in 2030 and then rapidly decline from there. Eventually, there is a decent possibility that the steady state human population worldwide will likely be about what the US has now.

As far as taking other species with us, I'll put my money on dogs. They're more controllable and we have so co-evolved together that I can't imagine humanity without caninity. But then, I own dogs and tolerate cats. Others I doubt will go. I expect that anyone going to the stars will have to undergo an extreme cleaning and that any materiale that we take will be sterilized. We have learned already to our sorrow the penalties of alien species in new, open environments. In fact, I'll be addressing those issues in the novel I'm going to try and write starting in May.

 

[rikaaim]

The general opinion among professional demographers is that the human population will peak in 2030 and then rapidly decline from there. Eventually, there is a decent possibility that the steady state human population worldwide will likely be about what the US has now.

As far as taking other species with us, I'll put my money on dogs. They're more controllable and we have so co-evolved together that I can't imagine humanity without caninity. But then, I own dogs and tolerate cats. Others I doubt will go. I expect that anyone going to the stars will have to undergo an extreme cleaning and that any materiale that we take will be sterilized. We have learned already to our sorrow the penalties of alien species in new, open environments. In fact, I'll be addressing those issues in the novel I'm going to try and write starting in May.

Hmm...I'd be interested in checking out that novel. Personally, I want to take unicorns, leprachans, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and dingos. I think all are vital to a healthy and well adjusted society.

I view it as this. I may be wrong. Here on Earth it seems that globalization is the new evolution. Heck, even the Pope is currently trying to build some bridges and shortner some gaps. So, if we are to make these dreams of planetary travel a reality, should we not band together as a race first and formost then worry about all the bickering and fighting later? Is it really like the movies when it takes some sort of global killer to get us to band together? I've also heard those same rough figures on the population peaking about 2030 with an equilibrium affect afterwards restoring a more natural population balance. I just fear what it is that will restore balance. A shift in viral activity perhaps?

I took a small aside from my own topic. It's was sort of a tangent from the evolutionary aspect that was brought up.

 

[fifty5]

Two scenarios:

One - ship out the undesirables; it's been done before.

Two - the best and brightest want new horizons - again, it's happened before.

Maybe the difference is who has spent the money to do the teraforming? They are the ones whose buck decides the bang! Why did they do it? Are they still of the same mind? Were they progressives or capitalist entrepreneurs?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Hmm...I'd be interested in checking out that novel. Personally, I want to take unicorns, leprachans, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and dingos. I think all are vital to a healthy and well adjusted society.

I view it as this. I may be wrong. Here on Earth it seems that globalization is the new evolution. Heck, even the Pope is currently trying to build some bridges and shortner some gaps. So, if we are to make these dreams of planetary travel a reality, should we not band together as a race first and formost then worry about all the bickering and fighting later? Is it really like the movies when it takes some sort of global killer to get us to band together? I've also heard those same rough figures on the population peaking about 2030 with an equilibrium affect afterwards restoring a more natural population balance. I just fear what it is that will restore balance. A shift in viral activity perhaps?

I took a small aside from my own topic. It's was sort of a tangent from the evolutionary aspect that was brought up.

No, low birthrate. See, Paul Ehrlich never knew what he was talking about. Ever! He's made dozens of doomsday predictions and none, repeat none
of them ever came true. Why? He's no demographer. Since 1900, the largest part of population growth worldwide has been caused by extending lifespan. Birthrates are falling all over the globe. Now we're running into to the limit. Humans seem to be able to last, naturally, an average of about 85 years. Soon, all these (like me) approaching elderly will go away and there isn't anyone to replace us, really. No catastrophe, no worldwide plague, no asteroid impact or cometary strike will be needed or even expected. Simply the fact that given the chance to have fewer children, women will elect to do so. And on the decision, equilibrium will be attained.

 

[rikaaim]

Two scenarios:

One - ship out the undesirables; it's been done before.

Two - the best and brightest want new horizons - again, it's happened before.

Maybe the difference is who has spent the money to do the teraforming? They are the ones whose buck decides the bang! Why did they do it? Are they still of the same mind? Were they progressives or capitalist entrepreneurs?

Exactly my friend. It would seem to me that the ones with the bucks to make the changes control the power of what really happens. What if its Wal-Mart? It's not unthinkable that a powerhouse conglomerate could do such a thing.

 

[rikaaim]

No, low birthrate. See, Paul Ehrlich never knew what he was talking about. Ever! He's made dozens of doomsday predictions and none, repeat none
of them ever came true. Why? He's no demographer. Since 1900, the largest part of population growth worldwide has been caused by extending lifespan. Birthrates are falling all over the globe. Now we're running into to the limit. Humans seem to be able to last, naturally, an average of about 85 years. Soon, all these (like me) approaching elderly will go away and there isn't anyone to replace us, really. No catastrophe, no worldwide plague, no asteroid impact or cometary strike will be needed or even expected. Simply the fact that given the chance to have fewer children, women will elect to do so. And on the decision, equilibrium will be attained.

Ahh...you've pleased my logic hamster. It was so feverishly running around its little wheel trying to figure it all out. Now everything seems so simple that I feel retarded for overlooking it. It goes back to as little as two generations or so ago. My grandfather was born in 1930. Thus, he is one of 8 children. The reason being he was a farm hand. Now, the farm in which he grew up is a subdivision. His sister's old farmhouse got bought out by contractors and is now a community lake. Like you say, the need to have larger families to cultivate the land is no longer the case. Families can decide how many children they want, in America at least, with at least some options.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Ahh...you've pleased my logic hamster. It was so feverishly running around its little wheel trying to figure it all out. Now everything seems so simple that I feel retarded for overlooking it. It goes back to as little as two generations or so ago. My grandfather was born in 1930. Thus, he is one of 8 children. The reason being he was a farm hand. Now, the farm in which he grew up is a subdivision. His sister's old farmhouse got bought out by contractors and is now a community lake. Like you say, the need to have larger families to cultivate the land is no longer the case. Families can decide how many children they want, in America at least, with at least some options.

Not just America. All of Europe is on the verge of near extinction as is Japan. And any arguments about birthrate being changeable ignore the limited time a woman is optimally fertile. In the last two decades, Bangladesh has halved it's birthrate. China's One Child Policy is coming home to roost. In Mexico the program is called Menores y Mejores "Fewer and Better". The Islamic/Arab world's birthrate is falling fastest of all. That's a lot of latex!

 

[rikaaim]

Not just America. All of Europe is on the verge of near extinction as is Japan. And any arguments about birthrate being changeable ignore the limited time a woman is optimally fertile. In the last two decades, Bangladesh has halved it's birthrate. China's One Child Policy is coming home to roost. In Mexico the program is called Menores y Mejores "Fewer and Better". The Islamic/Arab world's birthrate is falling fastest of all. That's a lot of latex!

Wow. I never really thought of that. I personally know of three women who have all struggled to get pregnant. One of them being my ex-wife. The others being some of the woment that I have worked with. The times that they did manage to get pregnant have led to still births or live births whose complications did not allow the child to live past a few weeks. The emotional strain is tremendous and put a serious fear into the two women at work about whether or not they would even try to get pregnant again. As for my ex-wife and I, we never did get pregnant. We knew it would be a struggle that would probably require fertility drugs.

I like the ideas that everyone is sharing. Some on space travel. Some on the logistics of what would really happen. Some on what's happening here on the home planet. However, I have to get some sleep. It's been a long day, and I still have a lot of work to do tomorrow. So, take care everyone. Goodnight.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Wow. I never really thought of that. I personally know of three women who have all struggled to get pregnant. One of them being my ex-wife. The others being some of the woment that I have worked with. The times that they did manage to get pregnant have led to still births or live births whose complications did not allow the child to live past a few weeks. The emotional strain is tremendous and put a serious fear into the two women at work about whether or not they would even try to get pregnant again. As for my ex-wife and I, we never did get pregnant. We knew it would be a struggle that would probably require fertility drugs.

I like the ideas that everyone is sharing. Some on space travel. Some on the logistics of what would really happen. Some on what's happening here on the home planet. However, I have to get some sleep. It's been a long day, and I still have a lot of work to do tomorrow. So, take care everyone. Goodnight.

Worldwide we have fallen for the dim idea that careers come first. Fuck that! Most Americans will change careers five times in their lives so what's so frigging great about jumping into the first one? Female fertility, though, is only really optimal for about 10 years, between 20 and 30. After that it gets more and more difficult. So we think that we can make money and spend it on play until the day we finally decide that we're ready for a family and then . . . oops!

Good for the planet? Probably. Good for people? Highly suspect, IMO.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne actually has the right of it. When (not if) we begin to leave Mama E, it won't be for economic gain because it won't be feasible to climb out one planetary gravity well to ship anything to another. What we will be doing is putting our chicks in different baskets in the event of the eventual planetary catastrophe.

Minor quibble with bolded portion: If we build a space elevator the costs will decrease by several orders of magnitude. It doesn't change the rest of what you say though - Mars won't be a place that can support huge numbers, and huge numbers wouldn't want to live there.

The most recent estimates indicate, though, that those humanly habitable planets will be few and far between and any other intelligent species extremely unlikely. What then, will happen? We will take those hardiest and most adventurous individuals and send them into what will likely prove to be difficult environments to adapt, evolve and eventually thrive as humans have always done at home. In time, about a million years, we will blanket the galaxy.

The enviros will no doubt claim that "we're polluting the galaxy" but screw 'em. I'm a species-ist - a humanist to be precise - and I think it's wonderful thing. (For discussion's sake we're assuming no intelligent aliens - that would require negotiations, because we can't steal someone else's world.)

But is it our duty to also save the other species of this planet being the intelligent race creating the technology to do so?

No it's not our duty, but we'll do it anyway because they make us feel at home, and also sustain and enhance human life. Beef, chickens, soybeans, oak trees, rice, corn-chips, sugar cane, Christmas trees, etc. will all find a place in our Arks. And a few million more. Honey bees. Reefer.

No, low birthrate. See, Paul Ehrlich never knew what he was talking about. Ever! He's made dozens of doomsday predictions and none, repeat none
of them ever came true. Why? He's no demographer. Since 1900, the largest part of population growth worldwide has been caused by extending lifespan. Birthrates are falling all over the globe. Now we're running into to the limit. Humans seem to be able to last, naturally, an average of about 85 years. Soon, all these (like me) approaching elderly will go away and there isn't anyone to replace us, really. No catastrophe, no worldwide plague, no asteroid impact or cometary strike will be needed or even expected. Simply the fact that given the chance to have fewer children, women will elect to do so. And on the decision, equilibrium will be attained.

Here are the numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

 

[Weird Harold]

Mars is teraformed and ready to be inhabited. We have the means to mass transport the population there. Who goes? Who stays? Is this a chance for the poor to be free? The hungry to eat? The homeless to find shelter? Or is it an opportunity for only those with the money to get off of this rock?

Who stay and who goes depends in large part on who is paying the transportation bills and whether "the means to mass transport" is large tranpsorts -- a la Titanic and the transatlantic steamers of the early twentieth century -- or some sfi-fi technology like transporters or wormhole portals.

If government is subsidizing transport via large spaceships, then the population is going to be a mix of needed skills and people with "connections" to bypass the selction process.

If it's free enterprise/capitalisim, then the passeneger list of the Titanic is probably a good approximation of the demographics -- a few very rich in first class, a few hundred upper middle class/business class, and several thousand "steerage" class.

I seriously doubt that mankind will ever have the technology to move more people than 17th and 18th century sailing ships from Europe to America and Australia managed to move -- something on the order of a hundred thousand people a year with a determined effort to build the martian population as fast as possible. The main difference is going to be a rigorous selections process and probable lottery system to choose the emigrants -- no illiterate menials or non-productive academeics for the first few decades at least.

 

[fifty5]

Exactly my friend. It would seem to me that the ones with the bucks to make the changes control the power of what really happens. What if its Wal-Mart? It's not unthinkable that a powerhouse conglomerate could do such a thing.

Low birthrate used to be a big minus: high death-rates, especially infant mortality, made that a way to ensure you didn't have kids to support you in old age.

These days, it becomes less and less like that - at least in the big populations: India and China.

As I see it, big population is the big enemy. In low population areas pollution and such matters so much less.

Th big issue to me is pensions versus growth. Better health science means that a bigger proportion of the population is too old to earn their own corn. Growth seems like a solution, but just defers and increases the problem.

Interplanetary solutions may actually be more viable - even if it's down to Walmart.

 

[Weird Harold]

As far as taking other species with us, I'll put my money on dogs. They're more controllable and we have so co-evolved together that I can't imagine humanity without caninity. But then, I own dogs and tolerate cats. Others I doubt will go.

Cats, Rats and Roaches will go to the stars with mankind. As much as I hate to admit it, Cats are better suited to space flight than dogs -- especially after space travel becomes commonplace enough that the rats can sneak aboard. At that point, Cats start fulfilling their traditional role of "Ship's Rat Control Officer."

I can't recall off-hand if birds have been tested in free-fall and/or what the results were. I think I read someplace that birds don't adapt as well as you might think they would.