Moral & Technological Problems with Mars Colonization

[ZooNamedGames]

[78stonewobble]

On ‎26‎-‎01‎-‎2017 at 5:31 PM, Nathair said:

1. No, you said words to the effect that a recruitment policy which takes gender into account is a demonstration of widespread female privilege. 2. I can't quote it directly because you have deleted the original remarks and substituted something entirely new above my response. 

 

3. Treating people equally is a nonsense goal. 4. Working towards equality of opportunity in broader society is a much more rational approach but we are not talking about that here. 5. NASA is working towards a particular outcome. 6. What you are asking is that NASA implement a recruitment policy which pays attention to, and only to, the particular criteria which you think are important and has as its only goal the outcome which you prefer. 7. Gender balance, quite obviously, not being one of those criteria in either methodology nor desired outcome. 8. NASA, equally obviously, completely disagrees with your preferences. 9. Either way, it is obvious that "No women would volunteer" is simply wrong.

 

10. How can the gender ratio of applicants to the CSA possibly represent preferential treatment for women? 11. Regardless, the point is that a substantial number of women do, did and would volunteer.

 

12. I am not going to get into a full-on debate about entitlement vs desert here nor about the ethical status of inclusivity policies or the myths of meritocracy, the KSP forums are emphatically not the place for that. 13. We have, I believe, quite clearly established that the idea that any component or aspect of space exploration or colonization would or should just naturally or statistically be one hundred percent male is flatly incorrect. 14. If you need a more complete explanation of why it is also pernicious and offensive another venue would be more appropriate.

1. If a recruitment policy discriminates based on gender it is systematic sexism (as one of the few actual examples of such things) and if it is discrimination against men and picking women over men, solely on the basis of their gender it is female privilege.

2. And I stick to it...

3. So you are in favor of discrimination?

4. You are not arguing in favor of equality of opportunity, you are arguing for equality of outcome.

In regards to NASA's astronaut application, there is equality of opportunity, since both genders can apply.

However if you combine NASA's astronaut stats and combine it with CSA's numbers, then there is not equality of outcome for the individual, since women are preferentially selected, which is discrimination.

5. Yes, the outcome of nice equal graphs, while apparently simultaniously exhibiting sexist discrimination towards men. That's not a step forwards... that is step backward.

6. No, I have never said NASA should implement a recruitment policy, which pays attention to criteria I think are important.

I'm saying that putting the criteria of gender into the recruitment policy is sexist and it is... per definition.

And the goal of eliminating gender from recruitment policy is for NASA to not be sexist.

7. It can be a criteria, but not by perpetuating sexist policies against the individuals applying... If you want gender balance, you'll need for more women to want to become astronauts and I don't think that's NASA's responsibility.

Personally I think gender balance for the sake of genderbalance is a silly goal. Gender balance is only about having a graph look nicely balanced for people with a weird need for graphs to look nicely balanced.

Making sure individuals can apply for eg. becomming an astronaut and be selected to do so, irregardless of gender... Now that is fighting sexism and being universally fair in regards to gender.

8. And apparently supporting sexist hiring practices.

9. And that is why noone said that, but you strawmanning others. The original statement, that women, on average, are less inclined to risky behaviour and men, on average, are more inclined to risky behaviour, is supported by the CSA application numbers and eg. how many young men die in traffic.

10. Because, if all applicants, on average, are equal and we have no reason not to think so, then it suggest that women are preferentially selected to become astronauts, solely because they are women.

11. It is an irrelevant point, without compairing those numbers to the number of male applicants.

12. You are right, the KSP forums are not... but you brought it up, by misreading and misrepresenting someones post.

13. Once again... Noone said that it should be like that... A person mentioned that men are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, which is backed up by numerous surveys and statistics and applied it to colonizing mars.

14. It's not offensive, unless people have a problem with accepting objective reality, that one average, men and women do exhibit differences. What is offensive... is if NASA preferentially hires one gender (men or women) over the other gender (men or women), solely because of gender. Which is sexist hiring practices and something we should have left behind in the 50's.

And I would think it equally offensive, if in some other area, there would be 70 percent female applicants, 30 percent male applicants and, if everything else is equal, 50 percent men were hired, solely because they were men... and everyone genuinely wanting equality for individuals, rather than pie charts in the sky, would agree.

 

 

 

[kerbiloid]

What offensive for girls would be in the assumption that girls are just too clever to be like them? :

Spoiler

 

[Nibb31]

35 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:

1. If a recruitment policy discriminates based on gender it is systematic sexism (as one of the few actual examples of such things) and if it is discrimination against men and picking women over men, solely on the basis of their gender it is female privilege.

Astronauts are selected as a group. Gender parity and racial diversity are requirements for constituting that group because NASA's mission includes inspiring kids from diverse backgrounds. A diverse Astronaut Corps is an essential requirement to fulfill that mission.

Quote

In regards to NASA's astronaut application, there is equality of opportunity, since both genders can apply.

However if you combine NASA's astronaut stats and combine it with CSA's numbers, then there is not equality of outcome for the individual, since women are preferentially selected, which is discrimination.

One could argue that the astronaut selection program is correcting inequalities that exist in other areas of society.

Quote

Personally I think gender balance for the sake of genderbalance is a silly goal. Gender balance is only about having a graph look nicely balanced for people with a weird need for graphs to look nicely balanced.

Not when your goal is to represent the diversity of the population. Being an astronaut is as much a representation job as it is a technical job.

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Nibb31

[NeverEnoughFuel!!]

I don't want to be a party pooper, but if we take a look at development of colonies in human history, who were first colonists in let's say Australia, or US? Banished convicts. I would say IMHO, we should wait until some robotic probe stumbles upon some large vein of gold or titanium or something very valuable and rare... combined with unsustainable population growth rate, here on Earth, lack of resources, A.I. development, and good old greedy capitalism, we can easily predict thousands of short life expectancy convicts being sent there to work in mines until they drop, guarded by robots and hovering drones and wi-fi networked capsules of cyanide deep inside their rib cage, just in case they decide to rebel. Meat there - gold back. I mean how many people is sitting now in prisons world wide? Millions. Why not earn some money of this slave force? This is my view on colonization of Mars or any other ugly/non habitable place... on the other side if we ever find some paradise planet, us ordinary mortals and average Joe's will never go there... only very rich and very smart/educated/necessary for the pleasure/need of the very rich will go there. Ugly reality.

[Bill Phil]

14 minutes ago, NeverEnoughFuel!! said:

I don't want to be a party pooper, but if we take a look at development of colonies in human history, who were first colonists in let's say Australia, or US? Banished convicts. I would say IMHO, we should wait until some robotic probe stumbles upon some large vein of gold or titanium or something very valuable and rare... combined with unsustainable population growth rate, here on Earth, lack of resources, A.I. development, and good old greedy capitalism, we can easily predict thousands of short life expectancy convicts being sent there to work in mines until they drop, guarded by robots and hovering drones and wi-fi networked capsules of cyanide deep inside their rib cage, just in case they decide to rebel. Meat there - gold back. I mean how many people is sitting now in prisons world wide? Millions. Why not earn some money of this slave force? This is my view on colonization of Mars or any other ugly/non habitable place... on the other side if we ever find some paradise planet, us ordinary mortals and average Joe's will never go there... only very rich and very smart/educated/necessary for the pleasure/need of the very rich will go there. Ugly reality.

But then you'd reduce the value of gold...

Not to mention that convicts, according to some laws, still have rights. And many prison inmates do as well (you'll notice a few cases of prison inmates suing others).

But the real problem is that sending anybody is very expensive.

[NeverEnoughFuel!!]

1 minute ago, Bill Phil said:

But then you'd reduce the value of gold...

Not to mention that convicts, according to some laws, still have rights. And many prison inmates do as well (you'll notice a few cases of prison inmates suing others).

But the real problem is that sending anybody is very expensive.

I wouldn't say so... that gold would boost up value of, as we are going to soon to find out, worthless paper money (fiat currencies)... there is so much of this paper and virtual money floating around that there is not enough gold or silver or anything to cover it on this planet.

Rights? Let's wait a few more years, shall we... ;-) ... we (human race) are on downward trajectory... or as the famous Louie C.K. would say "you have to be stupid to be optimistic- well maybe something nice will happen" :-))))).

Yes in the beginning... but when the machine starts to bring profits...

[RocketSquid]

The problem with making colonies for resources is that generally, robots can do most of the same stuff, without needing food, or air, or water.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, RocketSquid said:

The problem with making colonies for resources is that generally, robots can do most of the same stuff, without needing food, or air, or water.

This, natural progression would be robotic, then an small human maintenance group, you might do some science at location as its already paid for. 
It will operate like an remote base or oil platform where people are rotated, ISS works like this. 
As scale of operation grows the outpost grows you get 3rd party services, an bar is an obvious one but also other services. then into something more like an mining town. 
LEO and Moon has tourism as an labor intensive business but travel time to other places is too long. 

[Bill Phil]

3 hours ago, NeverEnoughFuel!! said:

I wouldn't say so... that gold would boost up value of, as we are going to soon to find out, worthless paper money (fiat currencies)... there is so much of this paper and virtual money floating around that there is not enough gold or silver or anything to cover it on this planet.

Rights? Let's wait a few more years, shall we... ;-) ... we (human race) are on downward trajectory... or as the famous Louie C.K. would say "you have to be stupid to be optimistic- well maybe something nice will happen" :-))))).

Yes in the beginning... but when the machine starts to bring profits...

Slave labor became uneconomical over a century ago. This is why it would've ended regardless. Feeding tens or even hundreds of slaves, and getting them shelter and water and clothes, is more expensive in the long run than tractors. Now, this is farming, but even for mining, robots would be much more economical. Heck, human labor is becoming more and more expensive while robots are getting better and better, not to mention less expensive.

[Nathair]

16 hours ago, 78stonewobble said:

<rant...>

3. So you are in favor of discrimination?

<...rant>

Apparently the mods don't mind this discussion taking place here, so I will briefly explain my position on the subject. This is an issue that comes up frequently in regards to racism, sexism, multiculturalism and  similar areas, this notion of "all discrimination is always bad", the idea (for example) that making a distinction based, to whatever degree, upon gender is therefore sexism. This is simply not true. As I mentioned earlier and as Nibb31 touched upon there is much more going on in something like the astronaut selection process or a university admissions program than some sort of blind, strictly score-based meritocratic filter. Clearly those people who would most likely triumph in a blind, strictly score-based selection process would prefer that that was how these things were done but the problem is that you don't get to dictate such things. A process isn't wrong just because it addresses more than one goal or because it addresses a goal that you don't care about. Obviously a university admissions program that only pays attention to your grades is very appealing to someone who has had excellent nutrition since infancy, a safe and stable home environment and easy admittance to all the finest schools. But just because you could qualify if that were the university's admission program doesn't mean that therefore the the university should use that standard. The fact that you have privileges doesn't mean you deserve them. I have absolutely no problem (in general) with programs that take a broader view, seek to ameliorate imbalance and to eventually make themselves unnecessary. So am I in favour of discrimination in the sense of the inclusion of consideration of the group, class or circumstance a person falls into when apportioning such opportunities? Yes, sometimes I am.

This kind of "Gotcha!" over a word is sophomoric. Discrimination which, in the vernacular, "punches down" is to be abhorred. The old boy's networks, legacy admission scams and glass ceilings are not "bad" simply because they are examples of discrimination, they are bad policies and institutions because they employ discrimination in order to promote and entrench imbalance and unfairness or in such a way that the end result is the promotion and continuation of existing imbalance and injustice. In short, they do substantial harm throughout broader society in addition to whatever direct and immediate effect they may have. Programs and policies which seek to undo such pernicious states of affairs are not necessarily rendered automatically bad merely because they (in the strict and narrow sense of the word I am using here) discriminate.

I hope that has made my general position clearer to you.

 

[magnemoe]

12 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Slave labor became uneconomical over a century ago. This is why it would've ended regardless. Feeding tens or even hundreds of slaves, and getting them shelter and water and clothes, is more expensive in the long run than tractors. Now, this is farming, but even for mining, robots would be much more economical. Heck, human labor is becoming more and more expensive while robots are getting better and better, not to mention less expensive.

This, labor cost is also important here, slavery died out in Europe as it was no lack of people willing to work for starvation wages, this is cheaper than slaves. 
Slavery became popular in America as it was an lack of low wage laborer. 
Why do an low paying job for others then you can get an better job or start your own farm.
Increased industrialization ended it, now we are lucky someone did not got the smart idea to run factories with slaves. 

[Bill Phil]

19 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

This, labor cost is also important here, slavery died out in Europe as it was no lack of people willing to work for starvation wages, this is cheaper than slaves. 
Slavery became popular in America as it was an lack of low wage laborer. 
Why do an low paying job for others then you can get an better job or start your own farm.
Increased industrialization ended it, now we are lucky someone did not got the smart idea to run factories with slaves. 

Someone did. They lost the war.

[Codraroll]

20 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Increased industrialization ended it, now we are lucky someone did not got the smart idea to run factories with slaves. 

If only...

I think North Korea might be the biggest and most obvious example here, but I've also heard pretty terrible stories out of India, China and even Brazil.

[ment18]

3 hours ago, Codraroll said:

If only...

I think North Korea might be the biggest and most obvious example here, but I've also heard pretty terrible stories out of India, China and even Brazil.

What is the difference between a slave and subsistence wages with long hours?

@Bill Phil You were referring to WW2 Germany, correct?

N A Z I goes to pedant?

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by ment18

[Mikki]

Aside the recent derailment of this intriguing topic...

How about colonising mars just for fun? Or "fame"? Or simple boredom?
Must it be economical? Does economy even apply to such a project?
What about all the lifetimes/workhours of the involved people in a mars colonisation project?
Wouldn`t it be a "higher" goal for bored and oversatisfied advanced people who are lacking any new discoveries on our planet?

I really think not attempting to do this would be plain stupid and ignorant.
Even if we know mars is not selfsustainable habitable, why not get there and see what impression people have there and come back here and tell us about.

Instead killing ourselves in various wars worldwide and exploiting the environment for luxurygoods and fast cars...

Common.

Sending people to mars looks logic. At least so logic like all the unreasonable things people do all the time.

I am gonna buy (or order...) a Tesla this year. A blue one. I love the shape of the cars.

 

[Nibb31]

20 hours ago, Mikki said:

Aside the recent derailment of this intriguing topic...

How about colonising mars just for fun? Or "fame"? Or simple boredom?
Must it be economical? Does economy even apply to such a project?

You don't spend significant percentage of your country's GDP just to entertain maybe 1% of the population.

Setting up a colony on Mars is a mind-bogglingly expensive endeavor. You would need massive political, economical, and social support if you wanted to do it.

Quote

What about all the lifetimes/workhours of the involved people in a mars colonisation project?

Yeah, what about them? How do you pay for all that work if you don't look at the economics?

Quote

Wouldn`t it be a "higher" goal for bored and oversatisfied advanced people who are lacking any new discoveries on our planet?of 

There are plenty of higher goals (fixing the climate, creating jobs, clean water for everyone, security and law enforcement, better education, free healthcare, preserving biodiversity, universal basic income, stronger military, free beer, and so on...). Every person has their own priorities regarding which goals deserve the most resources. Which is why there is such as a thing as politics and why you need to justify spending on your pet peeve instead of someone else's. 

That justification can hardly be "because it's fun" or "for fame". That's what Hollywood is for.

Quote

I really think not attempting to do this would be plain stupid and ignorant.

I disagree. I think throwing money and resources at a pointless project is a waste.

I believe in science and in exploration. I believe that learning how to live in space is essential. If a need arises, we'll find a justification to send people to Mars, because developing the technology is the easy part. But spending trillions of dollars for the "fun" of a minority is counter-productive because it can only result in a backlash that will push your goal further away into the future.

Quote

Sending people to mars looks logic. At least so logic like all the unreasonable things people do all the time.

Logic means there is a rational argument to do something. You are suggesting the opposite. "Do it for fun" is not a rational argument.

Quote

I am gonna buy (or order...) a Tesla this year. A blue one. I love the shape of the cars.

Being able to afford a Tesla while rejecting economics is a bit hypocritical.

[Nathair]

19 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

I disagree. I think throwing money and resources at a pointless project is a waste.

In fact, the "mind-boggling" expense isn't actually all that mind-boggling. When the GDP of the g20 is seventy five trillion dollars a few billion dollars towards Mars isn't "mind-boggling" huge it's "found under the couch cushions" trivial. What is actually mind boggling is spending six hundred billion dollars a year on the military of one nation while simultaneously denouncing spending a fraction of that amount on interplanetary colonization as stupidly throwing "mind-boggling" amounts of money away. What is also important is that the money "thrown away" on colonization isn't "thrown away" at all. I don't just mean that in the sense that we have always, always received excellent returns on our investments in space. (Which is quite true.) I mean that the money spent on colonizing Mars would be spent not somehow destroyed. We aren't talking about taking the money to Mars and burying it in the red sand, forever lost to the world economy, we're talking about paying engineers and manufacturers and researchers etc. All in all, I think it would be an excellent choice, although not one likely to be made in today's political climate.

[Nibb31]

I specifically mentioned that exploration is a worthwhile goal. Colonization on the other hand is a pipe dream with no realistic motive, no societal or political support, and no economical purpose.

 

Quote

In fact, the "mind-boggling" expense isn't actually all that mind-boggling. When the GDP of the g20 is seventy five trillion dollars a few billion dollars towards Mars isn't "mind-boggling" huge it's "found under the couch cushions" trivial.

So what programs and policies do you strip to fund your personal pipe dream? Politics is about decisions. Deciding is renouncing. So what do give up? Education? Roads? Clean air? Jobs? Research? Energy? Defense? Healthcare?

Quote

What is actually mind boggling is spending six hundred billion dollars a year on the military of one nation while simultaneously denouncing spending a fraction of that amount on interplanetary colonization as stupidly throwing "mind-boggling" amounts of money away.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where defense is necessary. You could probably cut some defense spending, especially in US, but one could argue that most of the G20 countries you mention actually don't spend enough money to protect themselves from threats.

Quote

What is also important is that the money "thrown away" on colonization isn't "thrown away" at all. I don't just mean that in the sense that we have always, always received excellent returns on our investments in space. (Which is quite true.) I mean that the money spent on colonizing Mars would be spent not somehow destroyed. We aren't talking about taking the money to Mars and burying it in the red sand, forever lost to the world economy, we're talking about paying engineers and manufacturers and researchers etc.

This is true for all government spending. Including defense. The difference with a multi-trillion dollar colonization project is that we reap benefits in return for that spending.

Even if the government buys gold-plated toilet seats for the White House, that money is injected into the economy, creates jobs, which is a good thing, and comes back in the form of taxes. But of course, some expenditures are more beneficial to the population than others.

Quote

All in all, I think it would be an excellent choice, although not one likely to be made in today's political climate.

You think, but you still haven't given a single rational reason why.

[NeverEnoughFuel!!]

On 2/9/2017 at 2:48 AM, Bill Phil said:

Slave labor became uneconomical over a century ago. This is why it would've ended regardless. Feeding tens or even hundreds of slaves, and getting them shelter and water and clothes, is more expensive in the long run than tractors. Now, this is farming, but even for mining, robots would be much more economical. Heck, human labor is becoming more and more expensive while robots are getting better and better, not to mention less expensive.

So a robot is less expensive than a convict... a convict  that you need to get rid of anyway?   I  don't think so... modern slavery is the same (worse) slavery as the old one... take a look at prisons worldwide (USA too), Iphone factories in China where every other day some kid jumps out of window, or India, or N. Korea... why Apple didn't buy robots instead of Chinese, or Hindus or whoever else... every capitalist will always choose 30 convicts/ Chinese/ Hindus/(modern) slaves for a price of one robot...  utopian (Star Trek) world where robots work and all of us just enjoy ourselves is impossible... at least until money (or human greed) exists,  or aliens visit us (and kick our ass a bit... just enough to wise up )... every day faster and faster we are running out of resources, and we multiply (like a virus - agent Smith) more and more... at current consumption rate USA alone needs four (4!) planets Earth in next 100 years... where is India, China, EU...Russia... hell today I saw demonstrations in Brazil because someone wants to privatize water  ... water for God's sake... this  is going to happen more and more... Brazil is first who's next?

Edited February 11, 2017 by NeverEnoughFuel!!

[RocketSquid]

1 minute ago, NeverEnoughFuel!! said:

So a robot is less expensive than a convict... a convict  that you need to get rid of anyway?

Yes. Convicts (and humans in general) have this funny thing where they need food to remain productive. And also pressurized oxygenated air. Also water. And sleep. Need I continue?

Robots need none of that, and do away with all of the features humans have which aren't productive.

On Earth, where air is free, human labor can be economical. In space, where every resource a human needs means extra cost to launch, extra cost to transport to mars, extra mass you have to land, and more things to break and send your operation grinding to a halt. On earth, where food can be grown outside using sunlight, feeding workers is practical. On mars, you need to carry greenhouses with you whenever you want to grow plants. On earth, freshwater falls from the sky, needing only some cleaning. On mars, getting water entails excavating, melting, and purifying ice.

If you're going to argue that robots need power, how do you intend to extract or recycle oxygen without power?

If you're going to argue that robots are heavier, you have clearly never lifted a computer.

If you're going to argue that the robot is more expensive to create, you do not understand the cost of astronaut training.

If you're going to argue that we need to get rid of them, that is a moral argument which I would not like to get into here. But, if you really want to store convicts in space, the moon or a space station is easier.

There are only a few reasons to have humans on other planets, and labor is not one of them. If they're there for one of the other reasons, is having them work convenient? Yes. Is it viable to send them for the sole purpose of operating mining equipment? Not at all.

[Nathair]

16 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

So what programs and policies do you strip to fund your personal pipe dream? Politics is about decisions. Deciding is renouncing. So what do give up? Education? Roads? Clean air? Jobs? Research? Energy? Defense? Healthcare?

I would suggest beginning with cuts to military spending (what you call "defense") . One percent of that money would fund the colonization of Mars quite nicely. If we were in a real rush we could also look at the US spending the kind of money on space that they did in, say, 1965. That would handle things nicely for a full steam ahead approach.

16 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

one could argue that most of the G20 countries you mention actually don't spend enough money to protect themselves from threats.

One could argue that this rock keeps the tigers away too, doesn't make it so.

16 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

But of course, some expenditures are more beneficial to the population than others.

You think, but you still haven't given a single rational reason why.

Science spending, especially the exploration of space, has always been a good investment both directly economically and through new technologies and quality of life. There's no reason to expect that to suddenly change. I think the contrast to spending the same dollars on, say, providing full military gear to small town police departments or a few billion spent in making sure that people don't smoke pot is pretty obvious.

[NeverEnoughFuel!!]

53 minutes ago, RocketSquid said:

Yes. Convicts (and humans in general) have this funny thing where they need food to remain productive. And also pressurized oxygenated air. Also water. And sleep. Need I continue?

Robots need none of that, and do away with all of the features humans have which aren't productive.

On Earth, where air is free, human labor can be economical. In space, where every resource a human needs means extra cost to launch, extra cost to transport to mars, extra mass you have to land, and more things to break and send your operation grinding to a halt. On earth, where food can be grown outside using sunlight, feeding workers is practical. On mars, you need to carry greenhouses with you whenever you want to grow plants. On earth, freshwater falls from the sky, needing only some cleaning. On mars, getting water entails excavating, melting, and purifying ice.

If you're going to argue that robots need power, how do you intend to extract or recycle oxygen without power?

If you're going to argue that robots are heavier, you have clearly never lifted a computer.

If you're going to argue that the robot is more expensive to create, you do not understand the cost of astronaut training.

If you're going to argue that we need to get rid of them, that is a moral argument which I would not like to get into here. But, if you really want to store convicts in space, the moon or a space station is easier.

There are only a few reasons to have humans on other planets, and labor is not one of them. If they're there for one of the other reasons, is having them work convenient? Yes. Is it viable to send them for the sole purpose of operating mining equipment? Not at all.

Oh, boy... (sigh)... you really didn't understand me, or my vision/opinion is too painful? They will send robots at first. To prepare the terrain, plant a few reactors for oxygen extraction/heating and to dig a few large holding cells inside a mountain. Astronaut training? What astronaut? What training? Somebody died on the way there/up? "UPS"! They burned up in the atmosphere? "UPS"! They crashed on the surface? "UPS" again! It's a one way trip to live like a moll and never see a daylight again for the rest of (a very short) life in an accommodation similar to one in the "Snowpiercer"'s (if you haven't saw the movie I highly recommend it) back wagons. Mining equipment? You mean shovels, pikes, some cartwheel and good old TNT? This will not happen now. But in the next 50+ years is highly probable... (if we all don't evaporate in a nuclear war for resources)... with advancements in technology we see every day (metallic hydrogen, EmDrive, space elevator, hell even warp drive, why not), Mars is getting closer and closer... and we know every tech is a double edged sword. Sorry for being pessimist... I would love to see united humanity of space explorers for curiosity, fun and expansion... but this is more likely scenario.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, NeverEnoughFuel!! said:

So a robot is less expensive than a convict... a convict  that you need to get rid of anyway?   I  don't think so... modern slavery is the same (worse) slavery as the old one... take a look at prisons worldwide (USA too), Iphone factories in China where every other day some kid jumps out of window, or India, or N. Korea... why Apple didn't buy robots instead of Chinese, or Hindus or whoever else... every capitalist will always choose 30 convicts/ Chinese/ Hindus/(modern) slaves for a price of one robot...  utopian (Star Trek) world where robots work and all of us just enjoy ourselves is impossible... at least until money (or human greed) exists,  or aliens visit us (and kick our ass a bit... just enough to wise up )... every day faster and faster we are running out of resources, and we multiply (like a virus - agent Smith) more and more... at current consumption rate USA alone needs four (4!) planets Earth in next 100 years... where is India, China, EU...Russia... hell today I saw demonstrations in Brazil because someone wants to privatize water  ... water for God's sake... this  is going to happen more and more... Brazil is first who's next?

Sure. But we're talking about Mars here. Space in general. There's a good reason that less people have gone to space than the number of billionaires, and that's because space is hard. Everything in space will kill you, unless you're careful. Mars is worse, since it's distance is very far. And that "slave labor" would be much more useful here than on Mars, if anyone wanted to do it.

Apple doesn't use robots because they're not easy to design. Very expensive to design. And, potentially, program. But after that step, a big first step, you'll have lower costs. Especially in space. Notice how probes have gone to every major planet, and the only place people have gone to is the Moon.

The USA does not need 4 planet Earth's. Notice how it's not even the largest country on Earth, and that food production in the US is actually some of the most efficient (more than 40 tonnes per hectare for potatoes) with only a handful of nations with better yields. The only argument would be production, and half of global steel production is entirely China. Energy? Maybe. But that can be solved in a variety of ways. We could use Space Based Solar Power, or you could push hard for nuclear (it's pretty dang good, compared to coal, and it has the least deaths per unit of energy produced, save wind-even hydroelectric has killed more people), and we'd be all set. But then there's issues with transportation. Electric cars, while not everywhere, are a growing market. And they're likely to improve.

3 minutes ago, NeverEnoughFuel!! said:

Oh, boy... (sigh)... you really didn't understand me, or my vision/opinion is too painful? They will send robots at first. To prepare the terrain, plant a few reactors for oxygen extraction/heating and to dig a few large holding cells inside a mountain. Astronaut training? What astronaut? What training? Somebody died on the way there/up? "UPS"! They burned up in the atmosphere? "UPS"! They crashed on the surface? "UPS" again! It's a one way trip to live like a moll and never see a daylight again for the rest of (a very short) life in an accommodation similar to one in the "Snowpiercer"'s (if you haven't saw the movie I highly recommend it) back wagons. Mining equipment? You mean shovels, pikes, some cartwheel and good old TNT? This will not happen now. But in the next 50+ years is highly probable... (if we all don't evaporate in a nuclear war for resources)... with advancements in technology we see every day (metallic hydrogen, EmDrive, space elevator, hell even warp drive, why not), Mars is getting closer and closer... and we know every tech is a double edged sword. Sorry for being pessimist... I would love to see united humanity of space explorers for curiosity, fun and expansion... but this is more likely scenario.

It's expensive. Flat out expensive. It costs a lot of money to send anything anywhere in the solar system. Humans are very expensive to transport.

Movies are not an indication of real life. We're not overpopulated. We're not draining Earth all that fast.

Guess what? Shovels may not work. Picks may not work. Even if they did, you'd need to somehow make a suit mobile enough. Or maybe pressurize the tunnel. But then what's stopping the criminal from setting up their own kingdom by collecting all the equipment and getting their faction to kill anyone who they don't like? Robots? Then why send the criminals at all? What will they do there? Mine? The resources they mine will not go anywhere. Are they for the colony? Then why won't the criminals just build their own colonies and revolt? We probably couldn't stop them...

EmDrive doesn't exist. Space elevators won't work (or are just so heinously uneconomical... considering how massive the tether is). Warp drive likely won't work for centuries, if it works.

Mars is getting closer and closer, but we're not sending criminals anytime soon. That would empower them too much.

It's not that your vision is painful, it's that it's based on false assumptions. If we will ever use criminals as slaves, we'll do it here on Earth, not on Mars. Doing it on Mars will simply let them run free and have a planet to themselves. It's like giving your worst criminals the resources to continue committing crimes ten times over. Not to mention that many criminals are just down on their luck. Or they did something that the government deemed illegal with no good reason (reigning it back in...).

Sending criminals is simply impractical.

[Mikki]

8 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Being able to afford a Tesla while rejecting economics is a bit hypocritical.

Living (And working) in europa has its own advantages. (Europa doesn`t end in Jekaterinburg. Europa ends in Wladiwostok.)

And the US spends significantly more percentages of their GDP to entertain atleast 5% of their inhabitants with obscure jobs...

Edited February 11, 2017 by Mikki