Interplanetary Governence - how do we manage off-world colonies?

[11of10]

You're incredibly optimistic. What you need for war is one group of people believing in their ability to take something from another group of people by war.

Threaten another colony with improvised explosives to shatter their "dome" or something, and you have a war. Hell, you can always do a colony drop on them with a "malfunctioned" freighter. It doesn't have to be large scale.

Also, anyone here read Earthlight by Arthur Clarke?

[Bill Phil]

My pure and wild guess is, the industrial backbone needed for war and the population needed for that industrial level would come long after the colonists' descendants have started identified themselves as people of whatever planet they live on. Whether they would, after countless generations, form multiple nations on that planet is another story entirely but then the people there would most likely identify themselves as citizen of their home country.

Well, that's a possibility, too.

[PB666]

Say once we are capable of long distance interplanetary travel and colonization of other celestial bodies, how are we going to govern them? Say, for example, when we made a permanent colony on Mars.

Will we leave it an autonomous body that govern itself, or will there be some kind of proxy government of earth over there? What would be the pros and cons of that?

When the colony get large enough to span over the surface of mars, would they breaks off into small countries like on Earth?

Then what would be the relationship between Earth nations and Mars nations? Would they be consider a smaller colony under the sponsored nation on earth?

The time to ask that question in when they can sustain themselves in the short term. For example, when they are capable of producing their own solar panels and/or thermonuclear power, In a situation like Mars. In the case of Venus the ability to sustain a safe level of insolance. Mars would need to be equiped with its own independent hospital. The other and most important term is trade, can they sustain the level of economy to buy things that would be hard to make on Mars, such as complex drugs, new strains of cultivars, return trips to Earth.

The base assumption is that there is enough life-bearing minerals in the rocks that an efficient burying culture could eventually tap enough H, C, O, N, P, S, Na, K, Ca, Ar, B to allow for modest growth. The most needed metals are aluminum and Silicon for frame and glass. This would be followed by rare earths used to make solar panels, efficient panels are a must, with a level of radiation 1/9th that of earth it will take at double the best efficiency 4.5 times as many panels on mars to make the same level of energy. There is no passive energy on Mars either, you are going to use LEDs and electricity to grow stuff. During dark semicycles there will need to be electrical storage. This means minerals like Pb, S, Cd, and Ni. Transporting Lead between earth and Mars is more expensive. In addition Mars will need to make its own form of solid explosive, probably mineral based since H, O, N and the other components are going to be in short supply, no wasting Hydrogen for launches. They will need to be able to launch rockets with trade goods into interplanetary orbits if they want to trade.

I don't think this will be a problem in the next 200 years. In addition, since they are likely all to be dependent on Earth, and probably one or two powers on earth are going to be stable enough to maintain colonies that reach that level, they will all be adherant on earth politics, and it is likely they would be treated as territories like Puerto rico with limits to elected politics. The other problem is that we have not established that it is safe to raise children any place accept Earth, low gravity or zero gravity may be deemed as child abuse by space going governments meaning that all generations will be born and raised on earth prior to reaching space.

[Nuke]

a lot of scifi universes like to use feudal systems or a confederacy for multi-planetary governments that span many star systems, since you really cant have any kind of centralized government. for example your vote for a presidential candidate might not arrive until that presidents term is up. this would make operating a centralized democracy impossible. any planet/solar system can have whatever kind of government(s) they want but then have alliances and treaties with other nearby planets/solar systems.

for a colonized solar system i have a feeling governments wouldn't be to different from the multinationalism we have today. distances of communication/travel are long but managabe. either way i can only imagine running a government would get much more complicated than it is now.

[baggers]

As Jonboy has said, it's not got to do with what's the most efficient way of doing things, it's what people will do. Humans act in their own self-interest. Billy Marsface isn't going to care that it's not efficient for him not to own his own home, he's going to want the security that home ownership brings. Settlement 5-X mightn't like the fact that they have to give their titanium away in exchange for the bare basics, when they could get a better standard of living if they bartered it to Settlement 7-M. You are always going to get people who don't want to be part of the plan, for whom the greatest global efficiency isn't necessarily the best outcome. These people are going to want to go their own way eventually.

It's like the current obsession with GDP growth. It doesn't matter a jot if the GDP increases 10%, if 99% of the population don't see the benefit of that increase in real terms. Your colonists aren't going to care about meeting their iridium quotas and making money for a shareholder back on earth, they will want to make life better for themselves.

I'm not happy to say that, but don't forget that human's have imaginary friends.

A mormon-like of some sect can inhabit a very scarse land and unbrethable air, exploit some iridium, and be happy with that if it's wath please the "imaginary friend".

[PB666]

a lot of scifi universes like to use feudal systems or a confederacy for multi-planetary governments that span many star systems, since you really cant have any kind of centralized government. for example your vote for a presidential candidate might not arrive until that presidents term is up. this would make operating a centralized democracy impossible. any planet/solar system can have whatever kind of government(s) they want but then have alliances and treaties with other nearby planets/solar systems.

for a colonized solar system i have a feeling governments wouldn't be to different from the multinationalism we have today. distances of communication/travel are long but managabe. either way i can only imagine running a government would get much more complicated than it is now.

Sci-fi games don't really sell without conflict so of course they are going to magnify human conflicts, technological nations are not commonly warring at least not a large portion of the population, the media tends to blow conflict out of proportion, WWII we see millions of people involved in war either as soldiers, as the persecuted or as the civilian victims of collateral damage. Since WWII the number of civilians killed in international conflicts has been relatively small and the large genocides that take out substantial percentages of the population are generally underdeveloped nations (Rwanda, Algeria, Cambodia).

Typically technologically sophisticated societies are more likely to negotiate for the sake of trade, than to loon-out in isolation (pol-pot shows the ultimate turn of events). Isolation on Mars is the enemy not something to be sought after. Your basic premise is that of the 150 nations on earth the colonies are more likely to model themselves after North Korea, and less like say the European Union. Despotic autocracies are more imperiled from internal forces than from external pressure.

[Superfluous J]

The same way Great Britain ruled America.

We won't.

[Bill Phil]

The same way Great Britain ruled America.

We won't.

That was actually a failure to rule smartly. The people in the Americas that were ruled by Great Britain weren't treated very well. Of course they would rebel.

Not to mention the Americans only won because Britain knew it would be very costly. The cost of winning would have been too high.

[Skyrunner27]

The same way Great Britain ruled America.

We won't.

One word, Canada. Just because in one case it didn't work out doesn't mean it is impossible.

[Superfluous J]

That was actually a failure to rule smartly. The people in the Americas that were ruled by Great Britain weren't treated very well. Of course they would rebel.

While I agree that they botched it, I don't think any long-distance rule (where travel time is on the matter of days or weeks instead of hours) will ever be successful long term.

Not to mention the Americans only won because Britain knew it would be very costly. The cost of winning would have been too high.

And ruling Mars from Earth will be cheap in comparison?

What will happen is the colonies will stay under Earth rule until they get big enough to support themselves. Then there will be a transition period. Then they will rule themselves. That transition period can be planned or unplanned, peaceful or bloody, but it WILL happen. It is inevitable.

[Bill Phil]

While I agree that they botched it, I don't think any long-distance rule (where travel time is on the matter of days or weeks instead of hours) will ever be successful long term.

Keep in mind that they didn't have communications like we do. We can send messages in less than a day to Mars. A lot less. Back then, communication was just as fast as traveling. Or at least close.

And ruling Mars from Earth will be cheap in comparison?

What will happen is the colonies will stay under Earth rule until they get big enough to support themselves. Then there will be a transition period. Then they will rule themselves. That transition period can be planned or unplanned, peaceful or bloody, but it WILL happen. It is inevitable.

Well, no. It would be pointless to fight a war over a colony so far away.

If the colonists are given enough freedom, they can essentially rule themselves. In exchange for that, they could pay a fair tax and pledge loyalty to whoever is ruling them. Of course, something would need to keep them in check, which is the problem.

[MunGazer]

Responding to the original poster here with my opinion. I think that realistically for a very long time a mars colony would be very similarly connected to earth as a baby who is close to being born would be connected to its mother via the umbilical cord. Perhaps that's a poor analogy.

I would think that a multinational presence on mars would be similar in how it is conducted with the international space station - very cordial in the interest of mutual scientific progress, monies vested, and foreign relations. In fact, it seems to me that such a joint venture could possibly improve diplomatic relations.

Indeed, if the population and autonomy on mars reached science fiction proportions, you may in fact start having the people there want an independent state. I feel this would be quite a feat of humanity - long term autonomy on mars. I mean... wouldn't terraforming be necessary to have reached that point? Heh, if we had become that awesome and that advanced, perhaps humanity will have collectively shed their old problems of religious fundamentalism and embraced science and understand the concept of mutual survival as the basis of a moral standard, as I've so much hoped we would.

[ChrisSpace]

p

Say, for example, when we made a permanent colony on Mars.

Will we leave it an autonomous body that govern itself, or will there be some kind of proxy government of earth over there? What would be the pros and cons of that?

When the colony get large enough to span over the surface of mars, would they breaks off into small countries like on Earth?

Then what would be the relationship between Earth nations and Mars nations? Would they be consider a smaller colony under the sponsored nation on earth?

My prediction is that the first colonies would be considered a part of the sponsoring nation. In my first blog post I showed it is likely the first three such nations will be America (via SpaceX), China and India. These colonies would basically be considered 'states' or 'provinces' of the sponsor until they are sufficiently built up.

This could result in mars' land being divided up completely, like this:

Once these territories have grown up to a sufficient level, they will be granted independence. However, they would not separate from their sponsor entirely like how America separated from the British empire. Instead their sponsor would form a 'commonwealth', much like the one the UK made once the empire itself collapsed, keeping Australia and New Zealand deep in the British sphere of influence (for those wondering, being in the British commonwealth also dragged Australia into both world wars).

Still, these commonwealth-type nations would quickly acquire unique flags and stuff, although they may strongly resemble those of their sponsors:

It should also be mentioned that some nations will have commonwealths extending to planets and moons across the solar system, and possibly even beyond, so a nation's commonwealth could end up looking like this:

As more nations gain spacefaring abilities, mars and other worlds would have to be divided further, so over time it would turn from something resembling the map above to something resembling this:

The moon, Venus, Ceres and the outer moons will be divided up in a similar way.

Eventually, the off-world nations would leave the commonwealths of their sponsors. However this would take a very long time, considering Australia hasn't even left the British commonwealth yet.

So, in conclusion, the colonies on mars and beyond will begin as just a part of their sponsor nation, but would then gain independence and, one day, leave the commonwealth of their sponsor entirely.

As for a unified mars, well, that is highly unlikely for the same reason a unified earth is.

[ChrisSpace]

I was thinking of economical and political factors. Like what would the relationship of Earth and the Mars colony? It would be like the situation between the New World and the British Empire in the past, with vast distance in between and slow communication (well, 3 minutes, but that is still a serious delay considering how fast our internet works now on earth for important communication, like launching a nuke on mars).

Mars colonies would be treated similar to colonies in Oceania or the Americas during the European imperialism age. The Hohhmann Transfer time of 8.5 months is even similar to the colonial Australia-Brittan travel time. The colonial economies could grow in so many different ways. The time lag can be adapted to, however it might isolate mars from earth more than the moon (both because of the time lag and the travel time).

Without breathable air, drinkable water and fertile soil outside the cupola?

Getting ten times more salary than their Antartctic colleagues?

No, you won't get them off so easily!

The soil on mars actually is suitable for agriculture, and there are small traces of water in the soil. In any case, a sufficient amount of plants, closed-loop waste systems and genetically-modified algae will remove the need for consumables imports entirely.

If history has taught us anything, then the most likely scenario would be the growth of independent states, just like we have independent states here on Earth.

Beside, there is a number of problems with the idea itself, that there should be a government here on Earth running the whole show everywhere. Should we have a World Government akin of the United Nations where all nations have a saying? Or should one of the nearly 200 independent governments here run the whole show and in which case, which one of the nearly 200 governments should it be?

Luckily, the chance is very low we will see a nightmare like One Government to Rule Them All. I think human nature will put a stop to any plans of that, like human nature has put a stop to it all throughout history.

Each capable nation will rule their own bits of the solar system, and they should coexist like they do on earth today.

It'll certainly be interesting to watch though. Perhaps Google will settle Mars and make it one big server. Microsoft will populate low-orbit Venus, storing all their data in the clouds there. Apple will take Neptune, Facebook can have Mercury, Glencore will do it's best to monopolize all the asteroids. But in the end it'll be the lawyers of the corporations who dictate how the place runs, with policy being steered by the bottom line. Money is, always has been, and always will be the bottom line, and any new settlements will be set up accordingly.

Google GlassDome? But seriously, all corporate colonies would be heavily pressured by their Headquartered nation to make it considered a colony of that nation. SpaceX is a company, but they are almost entirely an American one, so SpaceX's mars colonies would be widely considered American colonies.

In the short term, bases will presumably be administered as the territory of the country that established them.

Good to see I'm not the only one with this opinion.

The worst problem would probably be the people on a space colony having ties to Earth countries. War would be a pretty bad outcome.

Space will definitely be weaponised, like in George Freidman's book The Next 100 Years. But overall the off-world nations and colonies would probably get along better than they do on earth.

The time to ask that question in when they can sustain themselves in the short term. For example, when they are capable of producing their own solar panels and/or thermonuclear power, In a situation like Mars. In the case of Venus the ability to sustain a safe level of insolance. Mars would need to be equiped with its own independent hospital. The other and most important term is trade, can they sustain the level of economy to buy things that would be hard to make on Mars, such as complex drugs, new strains of cultivars, return trips to Earth.

The base assumption is that there is enough life-bearing minerals in the rocks that an efficient burying culture could eventually tap enough H, C, O, N, P, S, Na, K, Ca, Ar, B to allow for modest growth. The most needed metals are aluminum and Silicon for frame and glass. This would be followed by rare earths used to make solar panels, efficient panels are a must, with a level of radiation 1/9th that of earth it will take at double the best efficiency 4.5 times as many panels on mars to make the same level of energy. There is no passive energy on Mars either, you are going to use LEDs and electricity to grow stuff. During dark semicycles there will need to be electrical storage. This means minerals like Pb, S, Cd, and Ni. Transporting Lead between earth and Mars is more expensive. In addition Mars will need to make its own form of solid explosive, probably mineral based since H, O, N and the other components are going to be in short supply, no wasting Hydrogen for launches. They will need to be able to launch rockets with trade goods into interplanetary orbits if they want to trade.

You seem to know your stuff. I'm not sure what to add to that.

[Nibb31]

My prediction is that the first colonies would be considered a part of the sponsoring nation. In my first blog post I showed it is likely the first three such nations will be America (via SpaceX), China and India. These colonies would basically be considered 'states' or 'provinces' of the sponsor until they are sufficiently built up.

Load of rubbish. Nations cannot legally claim ownership of celestial bodies due to the Outer Space Treaty. Bases or outposts on the Moon or Mars are likely to be treated in a similar manner to international waters or Antarctica.

Actual colonies with more than a few dozen astronauts, if they ever exist, are so far away in the future that the concept of nations as they exist today, or the current balance of powers, will likely be totally irrelevant.

[Bill Phil]

Load of rubbish. Nations cannot legally claim ownership of celestial bodies due to the Outer Space Treaty. Bases or outposts on the Moon or Mars are likely to be treated in a similar manner to international waters or Antarctica.

Actual colonies with more than a few dozen astronauts, if they ever exist, are so far away in the future that the concept of nations as they exist today, or the current balance of powers, will likely be totally irrelevant.

Who's going to actually enforce the Outer Space Treaty? And how will they?

[peadar1987]

Load of rubbish. Nations cannot legally claim ownership of celestial bodies due to the Outer Space Treaty. Bases or outposts on the Moon or Mars are likely to be treated in a similar manner to international waters or Antarctica.

Actual colonies with more than a few dozen astronauts, if they ever exist, are so far away in the future that the concept of nations as they exist today, or the current balance of powers, will likely be totally irrelevant.

I think if we ever get to the stage of people living in large umbers on other worlds, the Outer Space Treaty, which is framed in the Cold War era, will have to be rewritten. I have no problem with 10th generation Martians owning the land beneath their feet.

Out of interest, does anybody know the official jurisdiction of the ISS? Which laws apply there? Or do American astronauts have to obey American law, Russian astronauts Russian law, etc.?

[Frozen_Heart]

No one can really enforce the outer space treaty on other planets. If someone lands a base on Mars and has people living there it can't really be taken off them. If you somehow stop the host nation launching supplies before a colony is self sufficient you would kill the colonists. No one would want that on their hands.

If the colony is self sufficient which I don't see happening in our lifetimes, the only way of removing it would be destroying it. No one would do that.

[AngelLestat]

The problem is that countries very rarely act in a "rational", farsighted manner. They do not choose the most "efficient " way to do things. Rather, they are driven by shortsighted self-interest. In the last 8,000 years of human civilization, you will be hard-pressed to find a nation that in the overall greater good.

As far as nobody allowing land on Mars to be owned, if colonization is profitable (which is debatable), nations will have great interest in making sure that they CAN control as much of the surface as possible. And since colonization will be limited to whichever nations have the technology to get there and survive, nationalism will most likely continue (unless something drastic occurs to make the nation-state completely obsolete.)

As Jonboy has said, it's not got to do with what's the most efficient way of doing things, it's what people will do. Humans act in their own self-interest. Billy Marsface isn't going to care that it's not efficient for him not to own his own home, he's going to want the security that home ownership brings. Settlement 5-X mightn't like the fact that they have to give their titanium away in exchange for the bare basics, when they could get a better standard of living if they bartered it to Settlement 7-M. You are always going to get people who don't want to be part of the plan, for whom the greatest global efficiency isn't necessarily the best outcome. These people are going to want to go their own way eventually.

I dont have much time for a proper answer.. so I will try to answer the best I can.

About that humanity, groups or individuals not always choice the most efficient way.. is true. But if you want to make a prediction, you will be more accurate if you choose the most efficient "logic" way.

Also, in the past, war, steal, property, owning were the most efficient way (or logic step) in those times.

But this scenery would be very different to our past.

Many talks about interplanetary wars or things like that.. this is impossible to happen. first as I mention there will not countries, but even if you had something similar. When everything is connected, and is so easy to destroy but it cost too much to build, war is pointless. You will have terrorism as always.. but not war, also if everything is connected, then if you hurt someone you will hurt yourself too eventually.

You said that owning gives you security... that is an illusion. Even today... with new special neighborhoods that are designed to exploit sharing, they have more security there than owning. Of course this will not remove the money or work aspect as some utopics wants to believe, but it makes everything more easy, productive and cheap.

There are many examples of this new modality in business oportunities and new economics strategies.

Of course when a new alien world community grow they will have different ways to organize them self, not sure if it will be with pyramidal shape or a new politic structure.

I will continue if I find time later because I know that I still need to clarify many of my points.

Load of rubbish. Nations cannot legally claim ownership of celestial bodies due to the Outer Space Treaty. Bases or outposts on the Moon or Mars are likely to be treated in a similar manner to international waters or Antarctica.

Actual colonies with more than a few dozen astronauts, if they ever exist, are so far away in the future that the concept of nations as they exist today, or the current balance of powers, will likely be totally irrelevant.

Not always we find common ground.. let's celebrate

[Nibb31]

Who's going to actually enforce the Outer Space Treaty? And how will they?

Just like any other international treaty. A treaty binds the nations who sign it. Countries don't usually violate treaties that they have signed, not because they are afraid of enforcement, but because it's a matter of credibility in international relationships.

The Outer Space Treaty and the Antarctica treaty have been pretty well respected until now. We also have pretty well respected laws for international waters that have existed for centuries and survived major conflicts. There is no reason to believe that the principles of non-ownership are going to change any time soon. It isn't in anyone's interest really.

In extreme cases, of course, there are always UN resolutions, trade sanctions, and the usual range of military and diplomatic tools.

- - - Updated - - -

I think if we ever get to the stage of people living in large umbers on other worlds, the Outer Space Treaty, which is framed in the Cold War era, will have to be rewritten. I have no problem with 10th generation Martians owning the land beneath their feet. (/quote]

But we aren't even close to getting to that stage. To rewrite the Outer Space Treaty means that governments sit around a table and renegociate it to allow settlement and private ownership. Why would a country do that? There might be a benefit for some private enterprise, but that doesn't necessarily benefit the nation. How will a country enforce its own laws on another planet? Who will pay the bill of sending space-cops and space-judges to a Mars colony?

Out of interest, does anybody know the official jurisdiction of the ISS? Which laws apply there? Or do American astronauts have to obey American law, Russian astronauts Russian law, etc.?

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/International_Space_Station/International_Space_Station_legal_framework

[ChrisSpace]

I have blogged my earlier post, in case anyone wants to see that.

[Nibb31]

I have blogged my earlier post, in case anyone wants to see that.

Baseless speculation. Predicting borders, names, and flags at this stage is ridiculous. The geopolitical landscape and balance will be as different in 200 years as it was 200 years ago. There is no way you can predict how political structures will work that far in the future.

[peadar1987]

@AngelLestat:

People in the 1950s were predicting a global Utopia by the year 2000. Human nature always stands in the way of pipe dreams like this.

My point is that your "efficiency" is very "big picture" view. In terms of producing resources, individual nation states and devolved powers aren't the best way to go. In terms of people making life better for themselves and their immediate family and neighbours, some form of devolved decision making is almost always going to be more popular. Martian colonists aren't going to like being told what to do in order to make money for someone else any more than we are.

I doubt they'll go to war over it, as the costs would be too high, but civil disobedience and withdrawal of labour are completely realistic possibilities unless they're given a say in how their lives are run. That's generally a road that leads to something resembling an independent nation.

[Guest]

Say once we are capable of long distance interplanetary travel and colonization of other celestial bodies, how are we going to govern them? Say, for example, when we made a permanent colony on Mars.

It really depends on the drive systems we have available and the mass-fraction they can handle to the colony. Government relies on a monopoly of force so you have to be able to project that force and maintain a credible threat in order to prevent independence. Efficient drives will allow shorter transit times which means you can maintain a credible threat and keep the colony under your thumb. Mars would be pretty easy to manage as an Earth colony but a place like Titan would have a much greater opportunity for independence, given self-sufficiency (since self-sufficiency removes a credible threat.)

[Kibble]

It hasn't been very long (several hundred years) since sovereign states didn't even exist - people were loyal to an individual. Several hundred years from now "nations" may be as irrelevant to politics as royal titles are to politics today.