Colonization...

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:16 am

I wonder what portion of the US population would give up their lives, retirement and their life expectancy, to colonize, say, Mars.

-Crissa

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:24 am

It'd honestly depend on why we were colonizing Mars. Depending on the answer, it could go from anywhere to 'none' to 'almost everyone'.

As things go right now, probably none. At least no sane person would. Like, why do we physically need to go to Mars in a way that probes can't? And as time goes on the actual need to go to Mars will become less and less as computer technology advances.

Now for faster-than-light warp drives or commercial fusion power, if such things are possible, would entail a much higher proportion. But going to Mars? Get the funk outta here.

Jilocasin · Post by **Jilocasin** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:30 am

You'd probably need to have a fairly strong desire to live, but also be bored and slightly unhinged. What I'm saying is, sign me up.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:53 am

Jilocasin wrote:You'd probably need to have a fairly strong desire to live, but also be bored and slightly unhinged. What I'm saying is, sign me up.

Well when you put it that way... I'm perfect.

...at least there'd be a lot of time to play D&D on the shuttle....

The Vigilante · Post by **The Vigilante** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:44 pm

I would, but only if I can waste my time simulating life on Earth through VR dolls instead of working on the farm.

[/philipkdick]

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:46 pm

It's a moot point, because we don't have the resources to sustain a Martian colony*. We probably don't even have the resources to send five people there and back. Plus, it's questionable whether Mars could ever be sufficiently terraformed to justify a human presence.

If you want to talk colonization, it should be the back-to-basics kind. You know, seeding billions of extra-solar planets with life.

* Nuclear power could make it possible, but it's politically infeasible.

MfA · Post by **MfA** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:16 pm

Even with all the power in the world transporting a completely sell sufficient infrastructure to Mars is fantasy with our present level of technology.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:20 pm

The simplest answer is: Humans can do things probes can't. They can improvise.

There's this great picture of some cracks on the surface of mars. The rover drove over them. It looked at its tracks, and it drove on, because that's all it could do to what looked like mud. A human could literally just take whatever was handy and find out the density of the stuff, do experiments with it, etc.

The reason we can't colonize Mars isn't that we 'can't' or 'don't have the technology' - it's that we aren't committed to the fact that to actually explore the planet you need schlubs to tend the strawberries at base camp and dust the solar panels every day. And these guys aren't coming back, because it'd be too costly to do so.

The knowledge we could get from such a venture is great. The implementation of technology that can't be experimented with in our gravity well would eventually push science by leaps and bounds.

But anyone going will have their liifetimes cut short by radiation, dearth of supplies, and limited healthcare.

-Crissa

For Valor · Post by **For Valor** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:52 pm

hmmm... if I could take the temperature and food quality/quantity, I'd do it. Everything else would be fine, as long as I had something to do.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:34 pm

Come to think of it, they'd need people who can cook, and be able to design a meal plan for the colonists that would be nourishing and enjoyable, so... hell, sign me up, it'd be a great challenge for me and the skills I'm learning in class.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:12 pm

The two billion ping times would require some alteration at web sites to support web browsing, though.

-Crissa

MfA · Post by **MfA** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

That's not colonization what you're suggesting, that's an expedition.

A colony would need to be able to manufacture everything it needs to survive and expand. Mines, refineries, manufacturing plants ... procreation.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:52 am

So, I'm not talking about colonization... because I'm talking about bringing workers with no plans or means to return them, to support a science industry?

-Crissa

A colony should have those means, yes. And yet an expedition would have trouble without those means.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:22 am

I don't think any colony off earth will succeed because I don't think we know enough about life's systems. We know a lot, don't get me wrong, and we have a lot of details correct, but on another planet, we're going to have to mimic a sustainable, long-term ecosystem. I don't think we can actually do that.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:28 am

cause we totally haven't effectively colonized space with space stations and the like...

The Vigilante · Post by **The Vigilante** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:41 am

Prak_Anima wrote:cause we totally haven't effectively colonized space with space stations and the like...

Space station =/= ecosystem. Also, they are completely dependent on Earth resources for subsistence.

If you want to keep the colonization analogy, they are more like advanced outposts than full-fledged colonies.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:48 am

Prak wrote:cause we totally haven't effectively colonized space with space stations and the like...

Not to my knowledge we haven't.

It's one thing to send people up to live there for a few years, but to colonize? I don't know of any astronauts who spent their most formative developmental years in space, let alone any astronauts who got pregnant, had a kid, and had that kid grow up to be just fine while also in space.

We have no idea how the human body (speaking in terms of generations, not just a few years) is going to cope in an environment that it hasn't evolved with, and I don't think we have a good enough understanding of ecosystems or biological systems to be able to actually sustain a real, legit colony. If we do send up people to colonize, unless there's a major scientific breakthrough in understanding how the body works and how it interacts with the world around it, I don't think we'll hit more than two generations up there. And I feel that's being generous.

I believe that humanity may have been able to conquer many natural forces, but we have a long way to go before we overcome Evolution.

Edit: And here's an article on the topic, brought to you by Wired.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 3:09 am

The first couple waves of manned expedition totally do not need to come back.

Recruit adventurous explorers and pay them by making sure the familes they leave behind are well taken care of and they are well remembered - you know like every society in history has done for their soldiers - and you *will* get volunteers.

Even facing certain death and never coming back, just being the "first human to die on mars" is probably a grander legacy than anything I'm going to leave on my current lifepath. Actually discovering water or alien plagues or something would just be icing on the cake.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:43 am

We know enough about the human body. We can manage on a pure chemical level. The problem comes if we want to do more than that - standard of living above chemically scrubbed air and water. It's when anything that involves bacteria or ecosystems that we are screwed.

And we totally don't need to take those at first.

-Crissa

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:18 am

Crissa wrote:We know enough about the human body. We can manage on a pure chemical level.

Um... No. We can manage for adults whose bodies have already been created by the lovely things here on Earth, but there's a lot of forgiveness in a body that's already gotten the major requirements for proper growth and development. Most of the impact will be on babies and children - if they don't get what they need to grow from day one in vitro, you're going to get a domino effect of problems (see epigenetics {OK, Wikipedia, DNA}).

Unfortunately, we are still constantly learning new things about "old" chemicals and how they are relevant to our physical being - omega-3s and Vitamin D come to mind as substances that are really beginning to see a lot of publicity because new discoveries point to the fact that they do a lot more than previously thought.

Furthermore, there are the chemicals within our own bodies that we have no clue about - for example, a large portion of the endocrine system is still a mystery. We may know how an adult's endocrine system copes with stresses of being in space for a relatively long period of time, but that - again - doesn't touch on reproduction and those people (children) who are still developing.

Crissa wrote:It's when anything that involves bacteria or ecosystems that we are screwed.

Like in our intestines? {OK, Wikipedia, microorganisms}

Like I said, we know a lot. But I don't think we know enough to succeed over multiple generations.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:20 pm

I'm not sure why we care about that. We have an endless supply of humans here - there's no reason to grow and train them offworld as of yet. Well, lots of reasons, but none of them essential.

The first several sets in the expedition are going to suffer severe damage from radiation over time in spacecraft an on unshielded planets. So in fact, we don't want people who will reproduce at first - it would probably end badly for things we do know about.

You're off in lala land about experiments which aren't yet fully formed or verified. Which aren't at all important to supporting a colony. But are things a colony could study that we can't study now!

-Crissa

Emp added

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:31 pm

Maj wrote: I believe that humanity may have been able to conquer many natural forces, but we have a long way to go before we overcome Evolution.

What does it mean to "overcome Evolution"?

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:35 am

Crissa wrote:I'm not sure why we care about that. We have an endless supply of humans here - there's no reason to grow and train them offworld as of yet. Well, lots of reasons, but none of them essential.

I'm sorry... When you named the thread and asked this question midway through the page:

Crissa wrote:So, I'm not talking about colonization... because I'm talking about bringing workers with no plans or means to return them, to support a science industry?

...I thought that you were defending the idea of a colony, not a long-term visit. But if that's not the case, and we don't, in fact, give a shit about multiple generations surviving off-planet, then who the hell am I to respond with concerns of our scientific competence?

In short, you win by redefinition.

erik wrote:What does it mean to "overcome Evolution"?

Humanity seems determined to overcome natural forces through superior intellect and understanding of the way the world/universe works. We are not content to sit around and let forces act on us, we want to be able to act on them. That's why we have computers and dams and medicine. But I don't think we've mastered - or even begun to get close to mastering - Evolution as a natural force. We cannot evolve as quickly as we are technologically advancing.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:25 am

I do think the practical colonization of mars would probably require at least 3 distinct stages with the last involving the birthing and rearing of children as an actual colony.

I'd imagine it to be starting with unmanned vehicles setting up a preliminary installation, digging to clear an underground tunnel to dwell in, and perhaps making a concrete or other building supplies out of native materials.

Afterward adults who do not intend to procreate (sterilized?) will be sent to live and eventually die there. They will continue the building of a small installation. Spaceships may would land and be incorporated into the growing installation.

Preferably the colony would be founded upon an area rich in natural resources so they they could mine and convert those resources in order to grow.

Some sort of consistent and persistent power supplies would be required. (solar, wind, geothermal, methane?)

Eventually we could be able to create or locate an environment shielded from excessive radiation (perhaps generate our own local magnetic shield in addition to physical barriers, or have initially settled one of the spots that still has a local magnetic field?) where children could be safely spawned and reared.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:07 am

Hence my question involving the knowledge of never returning, shortened lifespan, low quality of life, and yes, high chance of never having or seeing your children you did have.

-Crissa