A City On Mars

[Terwin]

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

 

Humans are not automatons. We have the power to move beyond selfish impulses we are conditioned to have from birth- not naturally possess- and work together.

It always amuses me when people forget that all humans are born as self-centered sociopaths, and only through socializing do we learn to reciprocate, cooperate, and all of the other 'virtues' of humanity.

 

Learning to read does not help one come to the realization that all of those 'humanoid interaction devices' are actually just as self-aware as oneself, each with their own views and understanding of the world that suffers from ones own, and just as valid(I can think of many so called adults that do not get this, sadly.  Many of them using such ivory tower thinking that humans start as an effective blank slate that can be shaped as they like)

And being raised by robots would not improve this situation.

Edited April 23 by Terwin
Autocorrect

[farmerben]

It takes a lot of teamwork to run an outpost on Mars.  A city implies more than just an outpost.  Which implies multiple teams of people pursuing multiple goals.  New types of conflict are bound to arise.  

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, tater said:

5 hours ago, darthgently said:

Or, we could admit we really don't know how all this works and not try to micromanage existence itself from an ivory tower.  This isn't a single player game of Sim-Earth.  Solutions will emerge regardless of central planning's wet fever dreams

This. "Natural" systems appear by themselves. "Unnatural" systems must be imposed with force. At scale, we already knows which happen by itself.

Btw.

As the Martian colony has to be micromanaged from the very top, from the very beginning, it looks like a typical administrative-command economic system.

So, development of the Martian colony is at the same time development of a working hypercentralized economic model.

The MKR, Martian Kommunist Republic.

Or Яepublic, following the classics.

[DDE]

8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think building a Mars colony based on earthly ethics, laws, and societal structures is not a good long term backup for humanity. Such a Mars colony has an equal chance of destroying itself as Earth does

Hence the civilizationists' argument why humanity needs more backups that are still here but different.

At which point... bye-bye international Mars colony run by some sort of a global government.

8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

You could say, why not build lots of colonies then? Which brings us back to the idea capitalism will eventually facilitate the construction of a colony, which I believe is wrong…

That's just capitalism allocating resources more efficiently, as advertised.

[tater]

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

As the Martian colony has to be micromanaged from the very top, from the very beginning, it looks like a typical administrative-command economic system.

Yes, that's the problem with living someplace where the only place to live has to be built/managed or you die.

It was a response to a response. I think economically, Mars only works post-scarcity. (and again, I'm not a Mars Bro)

[DDE]

1 hour ago, Terwin said:

It always amuses me when people forget that all humans are born as self-centered sociopaths, and only through socializing do we learn to reciprocate, cooperate, and all of the other 'virtues' of humanity.

I doubt it. I do believe there is an initial bias towards empathy.

You can't rely on it to run a big society, though.

1 hour ago, tater said:

This. "Natural" systems appear by themselves. "Unnatural" systems must be imposed with force.

Yes. But life is an unnatural phenomenon. Any increase in complexity comes not from some synergistic murmuration, but through a coherent push with a unified will.

Both the free market and government dictate have their niches.

"The form is the despotism of the internal idea that prevents matter from disintegrating. If the bounds of this natural despotism are broken, the phenomenon dies."

[Terwin]

48 minutes ago, DDE said:

I doubt it. I do believe there is an initial bias towards empathy.

You can't rely on it to run a big society, though.

A quick search on 'child developmental psychology' mentions Piaget's 4 stages of cognitive development.

According to that, it is in the 3rd stage(7-11 years old)  that "children also become less egocentric and begin to think about how other people might think and feel."

I fail to see how you can be empathetic if you never even consider how others might think or feel.

(I would suspect that many people never actually achieve that level of interpersonal awareness, but that is the theory at least)

[darthgently]

25 minutes ago, Terwin said:

A quick search on 'child developmental psychology' mentions Piaget's 4 stages of cognitive development.

According to that, it is in the 3rd stage(7-11 years old)  that "children also become less egocentric and begin to think about how other people might think and feel."

I fail to see how you can be empathetic if you never even consider how others might think or feel.

(I would suspect that many people never actually achieve that level of interpersonal awareness, but that is the theory at least)

Piaget would point out that it is not through maliciousness that younger children are egotistical.  They simply do not have the cognitive capacity to be otherwise at that point.  Being able to imagine another's pov is cognitively demanding.  It is important that during their younger years that they are treated ethically as that modeling will click once they are able to understand

1 hour ago, DDE said:

I doubt it. I do believe there is an initial bias towards empathy.

You can't rely on it to run a big society, though.

Yes. But life is an unnatural phenomenon. Any increase in complexity comes not from some synergistic murmuration, but through a coherent push with a unified will.

Both the free market and government dictate have their niches.

"The form is the despotism of the internal idea that prevents matter from disintegrating. If the bounds of this natural despotism are broken, the phenomenon dies."

Interesting theories.  Something about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence comes to mind.  Smells like hermeticism wherein the world is viewed as a prison to be escaped from.  I cannot see it that way.  I'm grateful to exist.  What a time to be alive!

Edited April 23 by darthgently

[Terwin]

Sociopathy requires no malicious intent, just a disregard for the right and wrong, and ignoring the rights and feelings of others.

I have yet to meet a 1 week old with regard for anything beyond their own discomfort, and perhaps bright colors.

(It looks like they do not even start showing attachments to caretakers until 6 weeks)

 

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Btw.

As the Martian colony has to be micromanaged from the very top, from the very beginning, it looks like a typical administrative-command economic system.

So, development of the Martian colony is at the same time development of a working hypercentralized economic model.

The MKR, Martian Kommunist Republic.

Or Яepublic, following the classics.

I don't think that accounts for the necessity of innovation and commitment that will be required.  A micromanaged society is very brittle.  An internalized ethic of team effort will emerge the more survival is paramount, but squashing the individual is the last thing you want to do in that situation as it is from that freedom that solutions emerge

5 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Sociopathy requires no malicious intent, just a disregard for the right and wrong, and ignoring the rights and feelings of others.

I have yet to meet a 1 week old with regard for anything beyond their own discomfort, and perhaps bright colors.

(It looks like they do not even start showing attachments to caretakers until 6 weeks)

 

A young child too young to have the cognitive capacity to deeply empathize is not the same as a sociopath.  Way to broad a brush.  And I've seen empathy emerge in children much younger than the norm.  Individual differences

Edited April 23 by darthgently

[DDE]

3 hours ago, darthgently said:

Smells like hermeticism wherein the world is viewed as a prison to be escaped from.

Probably closer to Kampfgesetz or whatever, with a side helping of "thermoethics". The world isn't a prison, but it is what you make it out to be, and if you don't out in a constant, coordinated effort, if you leave things be and let them slide, they degrade, rust, rot, decay and die.

Not exactly an unnatural mindset for a space traveller, eh?

[darthgently]

31 minutes ago, DDE said:

Probably closer to Kampfgesetz or whatever, with a side helping of "thermoethics". The world isn't a prison, but it is what you make it out to be, and if you don't out in a constant, coordinated effort, if you leave things be and let them slide, they degrade, rust, rot, decay and die.

Not exactly an unnatural mindset for a space traveller, eh?

You previously defined living things as "unnatural".  Which implies possibly the most interesting definitions of both "living" and "natural" I've come upon in the handful of decades I've been literate

[SunlitZelkova]

11 hours ago, darthgently said:

Or, we could admit we really don't know how all this works and not try to micromanage existence itself from an ivory tower.  This isn't a single player game of Sim-Earth.  Solutions will emerge regardless of central planning's wet fever dreams

The likelihood of destruction is high then. If we go by the pro-Mars colony crowd’s seeming assumption that the destruction of humanity on Earth is 100% guaranteed at some point in the future.

I never said central planning was a viable alternative by the way. Central planning would set it up for failure too, because it relies on the same dynamics as a free market but with a person or group of people replacing supply and demand as the decider of what is important and what needs to be done.

7 hours ago, tater said:

This. "Natural" systems appear by themselves. "Unnatural" systems must be imposed with force. At scale, we already knows which happen by itself. If King Cnut makes markets illegal along with the tide, he creates black markets (and the tide keeps coming as well).

Because that's not interesting.

As I said above, that’s just setting the colony up for destruction.

All I’m saying is Mars colonies are not a rational means of saving humanity. If we want to go there just because it’s cool, we can, but I’m skeptical anyone would spend hard earned profit on something simply cool- with no tangible return on that profit.

This thread was revived because someone argued on Twitter that a Mars colony could become profitable just by selling some commodity. But the costs of building the colony and maintaining it far outnumber the potential return from just a small number of software or bio engineers.

7 hours ago, Terwin said:

It always amuses me when people forget that all humans are born as self-centered sociopaths, and only through socializing do we learn to reciprocate, cooperate, and all of the other 'virtues' of humanity.

 

Learning to read does not help one come to the realization that all of those 'humanoid interaction devices' are actually just as self-aware as oneself, each with their own views and understanding of the world that suffers from ones own, and just as valid(I can think of many so called adults that do not get this, sadly.  Many of them using such ivory tower thinking that humans start as an effective blank slate that can be shaped as they like)

And being raised by robots would not improve this situation.

Note that I said “partially for the memes.”

What I’m saying is “developed”/“modern” earthly systems condition people to be selfish. The whole system is based on a quest for power over others and more material possessions.

Let’s say we build a city on Mars as if it were an Earth city. This city is going to having unemployment, because everyone can’t be guaranteed a job or their productivity may decline*. Food will not be an entitlement, because people would have no incentive to work*.

*A human born into a Western style society would.

How long before the disenfranchised rise up against perceived oppression?

We could try and keep them down with a security force, but how long before the overseer abuses his power, given he now has greater ability to coerce people?

These lines of thought 

5 hours ago, DDE said:

That's just capitalism allocating resources more efficiently, as advertised.

The efficient route would be to build fallout shelters. Going to Mars is unwieldy and over complicated.

If the point is to save humanity and life, of course.

[PakledHostage]

5 hours ago, Terwin said:

According to that, it is in the 3rd stage(7-11 years old)  that "children also become less egocentric and begin to think about how other people might think and feel."

In my own experience watching nieces, nephews and my own kids grow, kids much younger than 7 regularly express concern for the wellbeing of people and animals around them. I would be worried if they didn't. 

[darthgently]

34 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The likelihood of destruction is high then. If we go by the pro-Mars colony crowd’s seeming assumption that the destruction of humanity on Earth is 100% guaranteed at some point in the future.

I never said central planning was a viable alternative by the way. Central planning would set it up for failure too, because it relies on the same dynamics as a free market but with a person or group of people replacing supply and demand as the decider of what is important and what needs to be done.

As I said above, that’s just setting the colony up for destruction.

All I’m saying is Mars colonies are not a rational means of saving humanity. If we want to go there just because it’s cool, we can, but I’m skeptical anyone would spend hard earned profit on something simply cool- with no tangible return on that profit.

This thread was revived because someone argued on Twitter that a Mars colony could become profitable just by selling some commodity. But the costs of building the colony and maintaining it far outnumber the potential return from just a small number of software or bio engineers.

Note that I said “partially for the memes.”

What I’m saying is “developed”/“modern” earthly systems condition people to be selfish. The whole system is based on a quest for power over others and more material possessions.

Let’s say we build a city on Mars as if it were an Earth city. This city is going to having unemployment, because everyone can’t be guaranteed a job or their productivity may decline*. Food will not be an entitlement, because people would have no incentive to work*.

*A human born into a Western style society would.

How long before the disenfranchised rise up against perceived oppression?

We could try and keep them down with a security force, but how long before the overseer abuses his power, given he now has greater ability to coerce people?

These lines of thought 

The efficient route would be to build fallout shelters. Going to Mars is unwieldy and over complicated.

If the point is to save humanity and life, of course.

Maybe you are thinking too much based on too little actual information.  There is so much we do not know.  The problem with the logical left hemisphere is that it tries to fill in what it doesn't know with something that "makes sense".  This is fine if these gaps are labeled internally with "maybe", "guessing", "hypothesis" etc, but if left unlabeled they end up feeling like logically implied facts, which they are not. 

I am constantly backtracking in my thoughts making sure to properly label unknowns as unknowns to keep me out of trouble.  I learned the hard way, lol, it's been a long road

[tater]

55 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

All I’m saying is Mars colonies are not a rational means of saving humanity. If we want to go there just because it’s cool, we can, but I’m skeptical anyone would spend hard earned profit on something simply cool- with no tangible return on that profit.

There is no economic case for Mars at all. Or the Moon. At some point maybe space resources become important—but not down a gravity well, that will be asteroids. SpaceX is not doing Mars for profit, it's a way to SPEND profit. Assuming they can make a self-sufficient city (again, I'm no Marsbro), then maybe they charge people to move there to at least break even on new arrivals vs whatever input is desirable (self-sufficient doesn't mean they won't want Earth stuff).

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Late to this party - but I've long had this idea that once space travel becomes a thing to the extent that people are regularly traveling between planets - that the only way to really enjoy it will be the Disney Cruise version. 

They will do it right. 

[PakledHostage]

51 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

 the only way to really enjoy it will be the Disney Cruise version. 

They will do it right. 

 

 

[SunlitZelkova]

6 hours ago, darthgently said:

Maybe you are thinking too much based on too little actual information.  There is so much we do not know.  The problem with the logical left hemisphere is that it tries to fill in what it doesn't know with something that "makes sense".  This is fine if these gaps are labeled internally with "maybe", "guessing", "hypothesis" etc, but if left unlabeled they end up feeling like logically implied facts, which they are not. 

I am constantly backtracking in my thoughts making sure to properly label unknowns as unknowns to keep me out of trouble.  I learned the hard way, lol, it's been a long road

What we do know is that humanity, or small portions of humanity, have threatened to destroy themselves in the past. It does not make sense to just export humanity as is to Mars if the goal is to save humanity. It “will” (really just have a good likelihood) of destroying itself.

I’m also saying that the costs involved in building a Mars city would be so exuberant it makes no sense to pursue it. I can’t think of any instance in human history in which a corporation has outspent itself on something with no return in profit.

The Mars colony scenarios described by people here tend to assume the social and economic order we have now will just continue forever. I think that is highly unlikely, and if it does stay the same, it is unlikely space colonies will ever be built.

You are right. There is a lot we don’t know. Which is why in my post where I did a very rough calculation of the costs involved, I kept it in terms of 2022 technology and economics.

If the future ends up being more of the same, a Mars colony just doesn’t sound feasible to me.

Now that you mention it, I agree I am filling unknowns with imagined realities- at least when it comes to the economics of it, because it is impossible to know what that will be like in the future- but I would say the person in your tweet you originally posted is doing so too.

Thank you for pointing that out by the way.

I just feel there are limits to the way things are now, limits to what we can do. I believe accomplishing something as immense as colonizing space is going to take more than just technical solutions.

6 hours ago, tater said:

There is no economic case for Mars at all. Or the Moon. At some point maybe space resources become important—but not down a gravity well, that will be asteroids. SpaceX is not doing Mars for profit, it's a way to SPEND profit. Assuming they can make a self-sufficient city (again, I'm no Marsbro), then maybe they charge people to move there to at least break even on new arrivals vs whatever input is desirable (self-sufficient doesn't mean they won't want Earth stuff).

 

SpaceX is a company though, and companies need to make money.

Some SpaceX documents WSJ found revealed that the launch business was never intended to be profitable. Starlink is what they hope will become their main cash cow.

There is a limit to how much money can be made on internet- it can easily be seen in the current profits of existing big internet companies. Taking into account what it takes to build and maintain a city on Earth, I’m skeptical SpaceX will ever make enough money to build a city of a million people and build all the rockets needed to get it there, while also still maintaining their internet service. And build all the robots needed to build the city and whatever other costs there may be.

Over the course of hundreds of years it might be possible. But not on the timelines Musk is talking about, and corporations would somehow need to spend their profit with no positive return on investment.

What I fear with his “we’ll have this done by 2050” mentality is people will see it fail to meet the timeline and then give up. Questions will start to be asked and it will be delayed more and more, and then eventually abandoned.

You often say a goal in spaceflight needs to be achievable in ten years or it isn’t going to happen. IIRC Musk originally aimed for Mars landings to begin in the 2020s, so has the right idea when it comes to landing and initial exploration.

Space colonization on the scale Musk speaks of is unlikely to be achievable in a decade. How can investment in it be maintained for long periods of time?

If the dream of space colonization rests on one man’s dream, what happens when that man eventually dies? What if he changes his mind?

People went to and invested in the Americas because there was a prospect of wealth. Freedom was another big thing. What does Mars offer? We assume people would flock to colonize Mars because of the beauty and awe of space travel. But people either want splendor for themself or their family. The Americas had advantages over Europe. What advantage does Mars have over Earth?

These are the types of questions we need to ask if we want to colonize space. We can’t assume some “law of progress” or “natural” development of humanity, or bet on billionaires doing it on a whim. A lot of people here seem resigned to do that.

What scares me is that if we set profit or “affordability” as the marker for doing something, we’ll just give up if it can’t be done within those parameters.

The Moon landing was accomplished by basically throwing those two principles out the window. Sure, steps were taken to get their to lower costs- LOR was cheaper than DA or EOR- but we were gonna pay the bill regardless of what the amount truly was (at least once Kennedy was killed. Idk if the same commitment would have been there if he stayed alive).

This kind of brings me to what darth was talking about above- filling in unknowns. We assume we’ll find a way to make it profitable or worthwhile to a corporation… what if we can’t? What if there’s a limit to how cheap/affordable spaceflight can be made?

All of my posts have been trying to allude to the fact that we need to be prepared for that possibility. Space colonization is not something that should be done because it is affordable or profitable. It should be done because of the potential benefits it offers to humanity.

Unfortunately, profitability/affordability doesn’t always align with “benefits to humanity.” If it did there’d be a business for eliminating hunger and homelessness. Instead it mostly falls to governments or non-profits. Governments are a terrible choice to task with space colonization and non-profits obviously couldn’t either.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, tater said:

SpaceX is not doing Mars for profit, it's a way to SPEND profit.

I.e. to lose/drop excessive capital, lol.

It's a capitalism, or I forgot something?

Maybe, Musk is a proponent of socialism?
(Not in the bolsheviks' terms, but in original sense, a socium-oriented society.)

Based on everything what we know about the labour conditions in his companies, and mass dismissals, definitely no.
Definitely the opposite.

Just a poetically romantic self-made billionaire, who likes to see the rockets doing "pshhh!"
The military contracts are just a hobby.

It's rather strange, though, why Starlink is for money, not free.
Billions of people would appreciate the free world-wide internet so much!
Even much more much than that... how did you say?.. Mars?.. Schmars?.. colony for a pack of geeks.

[darthgently]

I've never seen people as a whole appreciate anything that is free.  Not as a rule.  We are built psychologically to earn victories, to deserve victories, in our own hearts and minds, from what I can tell.  Once past the infant stage anyway

Also trying to hold the idea that Musk (or anyone) is so wrong in my mind alongside the idea that we should magically get what his team achieves for free is hurting my brain.  Much cognitive dissonance 

[farmerben]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

I've never seen people as a whole appreciate anything that is free. 

I do.  The total solar eclipse was cool.

[darthgently]

19 minutes ago, farmerben said:

I do.  The total solar eclipse was cool.

I did state "as a rule".  Appreciation and gratitude do, of course, exist.  But as exceptions to the rule from all I've seen. 

If SpaceX had provided filter glasses to all who watched the eclipse for free, few would have appreciated it or the cost or the trouble in making and distributing them.  Maybe momentarily, but next eclipse most would be whining for their free glasses expectations and precedent having been set

[DDE]

28 minutes ago, farmerben said:

I do.  The total solar eclipse was cool.

The opthalmologists won't be free.

Sorry, I still can't get over how people just stare up at the sun to the point of sustained damage.

[kerbiloid]

23 minutes ago, DDE said:

Sorry, I still can't get over how people just stare up at the sun to the point of sustained damage.

I did. (Didn't have a floppy disk at hands). Just don't stare long. A blink - and close the eye. Enough to see a round thing, partially obstructing the sun disk, and have its colored image for seconds. When the eye had a rest, repeat _{with the rest eye, lol}.

Of course, no optics, and don't focus the eye.

But actually, there is nothing to look at. Two round spots, one behind another. So, it isn't worth the discomfort.

Only the full eclipse, when the street got dark, was cool (in both senses).

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

I've never seen people as a whole appreciate anything that is free.  Not as a rule.  We are built psychologically to earn victories, to deserve victories, in our own hearts and minds, from what I can tell.  Once past the infant stage anyway

You just live among rich people.

Anyway, a 1 USD/month would be both free and victory.

Giving for low price is better, as people tend to treat free things as trash.

But at the same time how many 1 USD things weren't bought online, because you should register on site or bother with online wallets.

Edited April 24 by kerbiloid