NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/253777)
Some company wants to colonize Mars. Why do we have to keep colonizing things? Don't we have enough? Earth can't even support itself now. A research base is one thing, but civilians on Mars or the Moon is ridiculous.

Source (http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/253777)
Some company wants to colonize Mars. Why do we have to keep colonizing things? Don't we have enough? Earth can't even support itself now. A research base is one thing, but civilians on Mars or the Moon is ridiculous.Hey, that's how the British Empire came to be: Let companies do the colonizing and save the money! (which incidentally lets said companies make the laws in said colony, with unpleasant results)

Source (http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/253777)
Some company wants to colonize Mars. Why do we have to keep colonizing things? Don't we have enough? Earth can't even support itself now. A research base is one thing, but civilians on Mars or the Moon is ridiculous.
If some big company wants to break the government monopoly on space exploration, it has my blessing.

If some big company wants to break the government monopoly on space exploration, it has my blessing.And why?

And why?
They aren’t spending the taxpayers’ money on ventures with huge risk. They are spending the money of willing investors.
Investment >Theft

If some big company wants to break the government monopoly on space exploration, it has my blessing.

hell no. didn't you see what happened when we let the corporations run mars in either total recall or the mars trilogy?

hell no. didn't you see what happened when we let the corporations run mars in either total recall or the mars trilogy?
To answer your question, no.
Also, I have a very low opinion of someone who argues a real issue with fiction.

sounds cool.

I doubt they can have a whole planet, though. :rolleyes:

Other people will invest!

They aren’t spending the taxpayers’ money on ventures with huge risk. They are spending the money of willing investors.
Investment >TheftThat's good reasoning. The basic philosophy of a corporation outweighs the good that would do though, for me. I don't really want anyone out there for the sole purpose of making money.
To answer your question, no.
Also, I have a very low opinion of someone who argues a real issue with fiction.So predictions are unacceptable arguements?

Effectively, you would end up with a corporate government in Mars if they colonize it. The first colonists in history when they set foot on a new land usually formed the government there. If a corporation does it, they would be the ones with the governmental structure backing them.

This poses an interesting question. If a corporation has become a government and a nation in it's own right, what about the property it owns in their earth bound territory? Does it also become part of the sovereign territory by right? Or are they suddenly treated as embassies?

You would have immense legal wrangling and if the corporation has enough power (which they will most likely do if they can colonize mars), outright warfare, with possibly mars being cut off as an independent government from the world.

This would make it extra sticky since any future attempts at landing colonists without express approval of the corporation could be declared a border violation or an act of war with the result of the colonists being shot down.

So yes, you can let the corporations colonize mars, just make sure you've already established an existing government there.

On the other hand, humanity, being what it is, will most likely see a revolt on mars with the influence/control of earth being kicked out.

And then we'll see a new world under a single government. Providing of course it is a self sufficient colony. Still, it boggles the mind.

Whew. I'm glad that the Lunar government has already claimed Mars as part of its territory. I'm not sure if that'll hold up, but in technicality, Mars is already part of a government, registered with the UN and everything.

To answer your question, no.

you never saw total recall? but the governator was in it

This poses an interesting question. If a corporation has become a government and a nation in it's own right, what about the property it owns in their earth bound territory? Does it also become part of the sovereign territory by right? Or are they suddenly treated as embassies?Let's take history for an example:
British colonies in the New World had much crueler slave laws than French, Spanish, or Portuguese colonies. Why was this? The latter were controled by the Crowns of their mother country. The English were too poor to afford colonies, so they let private enterprises do it for them. The latter three considered slaves humans in a state of servitude. English colonial laws considered slaves property and made sure that property stayed property.

Corporate colonization? No thank you.

Effectively, you would end up with a corporate government in Mars if they colonize it. The first colonists in history when they set foot on a new land usually formed the government there. If a corporation does it, they would be the ones with the governmental structure backing them.

but if the corporations effectively control the colonizing governments back on earth, it makes no difference really.

free mars!

That's good reasoning. The basic philosophy of a corporation outweighs the good that would do though, for me. I don't really want anyone out there for the sole purpose of making money.
I really don’t see anything else out there. I have always looked at efficient space travel as a means to unlimited resources and living space.
So predictions are unacceptable arguements?
When they operate completely independently from human nature and make no logical sense. Of course, it is only my opinion that I go by when determining what is akin to human behavior.

As a general rule for determining the realism of negative predictions of humanity:
1984: Nonsensical, unrealistic
Fahrenheit 451: Incredibly accurate. Dead on
Only my opinions of course.

you never saw total recall? but the governator was in it
I’ve never seen any of his movies, ever.

Well, maybe they'll do it before the US of A goes and blows billions on a pie in the sky project to put people on a godforsaken rock in space with no commercial value whatsoever until a few centuries' advancement in space travel comes about, show the world what a stupid idea it is, and then America can spend that money on useful science projects, like moving away from a fossil-fuel economy, and developing a warning/response system for asteroids on collision path to earth.

*walks off muttering about sci-fi fans having taken over the White House and W's decision that we should put men on mars...

This could cause an interesting debate on property rights. I mean who could to own the land on which the colony was built? Even the libertarian Nozick would have trouble claiming (and probably wouldn't bother) that the first corporation to Mars has a property right to it. You can't very well play "finders keepers" with planets. This suggests to me that we have to think of Mars as a public good and hence should be owned by the. But what government? It is pretty hard to comprehend every nation on Earth has equal and joint ownership of Mars, and yet it seems the only fair conclusion.

Either that or the Martians own the land. It would be pretty rude for Earth corporations to decide the little green men have no rights to their own property.

This could cause an interesting debate on property rights. I mean who could to own the land on which the colony was built? Even the libertarian Nozick would have trouble claiming (and probably wouldn't bother) that the first corporation to Mars has a property right to it. You can't very well play "finders keepers" with planets. This suggests to me that we have to think of Mars as a public good and hence should be owned by the. But what government? It is pretty hard to comprehend every nation on Earth has equal and joint ownership of Mars, and yet it seems the only fair conclusion.

i like the idea of a modified version of the antarctic treaty system (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/Treaty/index.html). at least as a start.

Why do we have to colonize Mars? We can't even handle problems here and we want to create new ones on the Red Planet.

And if Mars was split up in the same ratios as the Antarctic treaty, that would be even better.

48% Australian.

Australia would have the greatest landmass of any nation.

Beauty of Mars is that it has a lack of greenhouse gases. Industries could get carbon subsidies instead of carbon taxes. A Kyoto system where you have a mimimum level of pollution you must achieve. Think of the possibilities!

Let's take history for an example:
British colonies in the New World had much crueler slave laws than French, Spanish, or Portuguese colonies. Why was this? The latter were controled by the Crowns of their mother country. The English were too poor to afford colonies, so they let private enterprises do it for them. The latter three considered slaves humans in a state of servitude. English colonial laws considered slaves property and made sure that property stayed property.

Corporate colonization? No thank you.

Uh, I don't think that's historically accurate. From what I know of slavery in the New World, I'd say the British weren't nearly as bad as the Spanish and Portuguese.

And logically speaking, private enterprise would be more interested in preserving the life and health of its slaves because slaves cost big bucks to replace. When you have economic interest vested in your property, you tend to take care of it.

Haha, these guys are setting themselves up for a disappointment...

The company is named after the emerging inner-solar system economy that its members believe will soon develop, one that will be driven by the convergence of four frontiers: Earth, the Moon, Mars--including its two moons, Phobos and Deimos--and Asteroids.

"The beginnings of the solar system economy are happening as we speak," Homnick told Space.com. "This is not something that's fifty or one hundred years away, this is something that's going to be happening in the next couple decades."


:rolleyes:

And logically speaking, private enterprise would be more interested in preserving the life and health of its slaves because slaves cost big bucks to replace.

assuming supply of new ones is greatly limited and the slaves never have sex. private enterprise might be marginally more interested in making sure its slaves were maintained at some bare minimum level for the sake of productivity. but only in so far as it increased profits. labor costs are some of the few places where costs can actually be cut to any real extent.

speaking of colonizing mars, kim stanley robinson wrote up a post-independence martian constitution for his 'mars' series that is worth checking out (http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/mars.htm).

My question is...who would want to live on Mars? Less gravity means that you probably won't be able to walk properly. Low atmospheric pressure means you can never go outside. No magnetic field means that you'll be bombarded by solar radiation.
On the other hand, we have a whole planet here that's ideally suited for our habitation.
Mars: a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

assuming supply of new ones is greatly limited and the slaves never have sex. private enterprise might be marginally more interested in making sure its slaves were maintained at some bare minimum level for the sake of productivity. but only in so far as it increased profits. labor costs are some of the few places where costs can actually be cut to any real extent.

But we are talking about colonizing Mars! It would cost to send labor up there, even with more efficient/faster ships. And they would be sending up highly skilled people, at least at first. So laborers would be a precious commodity, worth preserving.

Plus, in this day of instant communication/instant news, who would sign up for slavery on Mars? The corporation that maltreated its workers would have a hard time getting more, especially since the supply would be limited.

Let's go---I want to stay in the Martian Motel 6! ;)

Meh.. I'd rather Governments initate the colonization, which I bet will happen before corporations take hold of resources on Mars, but this has great implications for our species. This could mean the eternalization of our race... we won't be limited by the confines of one planet, we can expand, take shape, conquer our solar system, and eventually expand beyond it. Much of that is far in the future, but it's certainly something that will happen once we have the means. Godspeed.

Edit: Oh. And I doubt the United States government would allow any corporation to start issuing demands from Mars.

Private Enterprise is the only way we can ever hope to achieve a civilization that can reach to the stars. I'm all for it. Of course there'll have to be some regulation, but at this point it should be a very free area to expand into. This will allow maximum growth.

Plus, in this day of instant communication/instant news, who would sign up for slavery on Mars? The corporation that maltreated its workers would have a hard time getting more, especially since the supply would be limited.

Let's go---I want to stay in the Martian Motel 6! ;)

Since long range communication requires a medium of communication, i.e. coms towers and satelites, it would be absurdly easy to create an information blackout. Just make sure that your coms satelites send what you want them to send. And given that the only ones who can afford such satelites other than governments is corporations, you might find yourself literally being suckered into slavery with no way to complain.

Since long range communication requires a medium of communication, i.e. coms towers and satelites, it would be absurdly easy to create an information blackout. Just make sure that your coms satelites send what you want them to send. And given that the only ones who can afford such satelites other than governments is corporations, you might find yourself literally being suckered into slavery with no way to complain.


Ever played the game Red Faction? I've always thought that that was a rather good demonstration of the problems of a corporate colonial project.

And to those who are complaining about us messing up Mars... I agree with you. Why should we break up the empty barrens of that beautiful dusty planet with greenery? Fill that empty atmosphere with carbon dioxide? I mean it'd be terrible if we moved all industry off world and turned earth into a kind of park. And, horror beyond horrors, think of all that metal on mars. Everyone knows metal and other forms of building material are terrible byproducts of industrialism, we should definitely avoid acquiring them from mars. [/sarcasm]

And to those who are complaining about us messing up Mars... I agree with you. Why should we break up the empty barrens of that beautiful dusty planet with greenery? Fill that empty atmosphere with carbon dioxide? I mean it'd be terrible if we moved all industry off world and turned earth into a kind of park. And, horror beyond horrors, think of all that metal on mars. Everyone knows metal and other forms of building material are terrible byproducts of industrialism, we should definitely avoid acquiring them from mars. [/sarcasm]

Actually, I suspect that the only green you would see in mars is either hydrophonic farms and/or biohabitats where parks grow.

The rest of it will probably resemble the rivers that we have over here that are next to factories. Black.

I mean, the water is so thick there, it doesn't even deserve the name water anymore. Sludge maybe.

It amazes me how some people can always villify corporations while looking to governments to be pure and wholesome. Then again, if you're relying on Hollywood to base your opinions on, its not so amazing. (And it's rather ironic too.)

At this point, anything that gets a sustainable human population off the planet and established elsewhere is OK with me. I forget who said it, but: "The Earth is simply too small a basket to keep all of our eggs in." And it's getting smaller all the time.

The good news is that any human population that makes it to Mars and establishes itself is not going to be controllable by anyone on Earth. If the Martians decide to declare independence from their Terran masters (governmental or corporate), who's going to stop them? It would simply be too expensive to ship troops to Mars to force the Martians back into submission. Colonization is just barely practical, but interplanetary war isn't feasible by a long shot. And anyone who has the guts and determination to relocate to Mars isn't going to stand for anyone on Earth telling them what to do.

:p

Uh, I don't think that's historically accurate. From what I know of slavery in the New World, I'd say the British weren't nearly as bad as the Spanish and Portuguese.

And logically speaking, private enterprise would be more interested in preserving the life and health of its slaves because slaves cost big bucks to replace. When you have economic interest vested in your property, you tend to take care of it.Please take a closer look at slave laws. English law regarded slaves as property while the others regarded them as human beings in a state of servitude. It was nearly impossible for an English or American slave to become free, while the other laws ensured that there were possibilities for slaves to own property and buy their own freedom. English slaves didn't get sundays off.
Logically speaking? If you ignore human nature completely. Humans in a position of power usually abuse that power. It happens all the time.

And if Mars was split up in the same ratios as the Antarctic treaty, that would be even better.

48% Australian.

Australia would have the greatest landmass of any nation.

Beauty of Mars is that it has a lack of greenhouse gases. Industries could get carbon subsidies instead of carbon taxes. A Kyoto system where you have a mimimum level of pollution you must achieve. Think of the possibilities!Hm, if we split it up according to the Antarctic treaty, we'd have percentages that add up to more than 100%...

It amazes me how some people can always villify corporations while looking to governments to be pure and wholesome. Then again, if you're relying on Hollywood to base your opinions on, its not so amazing. (And it's rather ironic too.)
Just having read most of this thread, this was about to be my answer. Nothing boggles my mind more than the notion that just because an organization [i.e. the Government] is acting ostensibly in the public's 'best interests' that they're never going to screw up and everything they do, see, or touch is some holy font of collectivist goodness.

A lot of people fail to realize that Government and Corporations are both run by these somewhat large, hairless creatures called "humans." Many have similar tendancies, and they tend to act the same way with power whether their office has a logo or an eagle on it. It's a common argument that Corporations are worse because they're "only in it for the money," but few are prepared to apply that same lens to government. I don't see the Government cutting any corners when it comes to making money either, and the mere fact that they have no other authority to answer to in this regard is somewhat frightening.

So far, most of the complaints about corporate colonization have drawn upon theatrical releases, which is exasperating to no end [although attempts to use history have also been seen; folks if you're going to attack this concept, I'd stick with the latter]. Hollywood has this odd tendancy to go uber-liberal with their movies for some time, then return to a mode of insipid, nonconfrontational and/or non-editorial moviemaking. We've seen the liberal side manifest in the "kill whitey" phase of the '70s [to name one example], where Little Big Man happened to be the only good film.

So far, most of the complaints about corporate colonization have drawn upon theatrical releases

with tongue planted firmly in cheek...

I mean it'd be terrible if we moved all industry off world and turned earth into a kind of park.

unlikely. firstly, transporation costs would be literally astronomical. secondly, you aren't going to move all industry off earth unless you depopulate the planet.

That has a bad way of coming across over a text medium. Pardon me for not being able to read minds over great distances.

Just having read most of this thread, this was about to be my answer. Nothing boggles my mind more than the notion that just because an organization [i.e. the Government] is acting ostensibly in the public's 'best interests' that they're never going to screw up and everything they do, see, or touch is some holy font of collectivist goodness.

A lot of people fail to realize that Government and Corporations are both run by these somewhat large, hairless creatures called "humans." Many have similar tendancies, and they tend to act the same way with power whether their office has a logo or an eagle on it. It's a common argument that Corporations are worse because they're "only in it for the money," but few are prepared to apply that same lens to government. I don't see the Government cutting any corners when it comes to making money either, and the mere fact that they have no other authority to answer to in this regard is somewhat frightening.

So far, most of the complaints about corporate colonization have drawn upon theatrical releases, which is exasperating to no end [although attempts to use history have also been seen; folks if you're going to attack this concept, I'd stick with the latter]. Hollywood has this odd tendancy to go uber-liberal with their movies for some time, then return to a mode of insipid, nonconfrontational and/or non-editorial moviemaking. We've seen the liberal side manifest in the "kill whitey" phase of the '70s [to name one example], where Little Big Man happened to be the only good film.The reason most people vilify corporations is because there is a difference between a corporation and a (democratic) government:
Corporations' sole purpose is to make profit. This is true for any corporation and isn't neccessarily a bad thing, but it isn't the best of philosophies to build colonies with.
Corporations are not controlled democratically. The most democratic they get is that the shareholders can interfere with the heads of the company. Not everyone subjected to it is part of the decision-making process.
A corporate colony would be similar to corporate housing and residences. This means that workers would be housed in corporate owned buildings on corporate owned territory. This would most likely be free; an incentive to work for said company. However, it is also an effective pressure agains the workers since they can easily be kicked out and set on the street.

All of these are horrendous if applied to a corporate colony on mars.

The reason most people vilify corporations is because there is a difference between a corporation and a (democratic) government:
Corporations' sole purpose is to make profit. This is true for any corporation and isn't neccessarily a bad thing, but it isn't the best of philosophies to build colonies with.
I've got news for you: people are in it for profit, not just corporations. Think about the philosophical implications of forming a colony in the first place: You want to make a place where people can thrive and produce; i.e. you want to secure your future and theirs. Philosophically, the implications of this action are not terribly different from "making money" in the first place.

Corporations are not controlled democratically. The most democratic they get is that the shareholders can interfere with the heads of the company. Not everyone subjected to it is part of the decision-making process.
They can do a lot more than interfere. They can sell or buy the stock at inopportune times and really stick it to the Board if they really screw up. I don't see this mentioned here, but the Board is generally elected by the shareholders in the first place, if the company has public stock.

Also, if you want to get technical, nothing is controlled deomcratically. When you put people in power--anywhere, you're still putting the power in their hands, not necessarily yours. Decisions are made by one person [although frequently with collective input], not groups of people.


A corporate colony would be similar to corporate housing and residences. This means that workers would be housed in corporate owned buildings on corporate owned territory. This would most likely be free; an incentive to work for said company. However, it is also an effective pressure agains the workers since they can easily be kicked out and set on the street.
A coupe of years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that families living in public housing could be ejected from them if any immediate family member was ever found to be in the possession of drugs. In short, if your kid lights up a doobie downtown and gets caught, you're homeless.

See my point? The government does this shit too. As I said earlier, people tend to have similar tendancies when awarded power; government and corporations are hardly exceptions.

Source (http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/253777)
Some company wants to colonize Mars. Why do we have to keep colonizing things? Don't we have enough? Earth can't even support itself now. A research base is one thing, but civilians on Mars or the Moon is ridiculous.


Because we have destroyed the planet..lets move and do it somewhere else..Next stop Mars! :p :D

Source (http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/253777)
Some company wants to colonize Mars. Why do we have to keep colonizing things? Don't we have enough? Earth can't even support itself now. A research base is one thing, but civilians on Mars or the Moon is ridiculous.

Long, long, LONG overdue. We should have been on Mars 20 years ago.

I've got news for you: people are in it for profit, not just corporations. Think about the philosophical implications of forming a colony in the first place: You want to make a place where people can thrive and produce; i.e. you want to secure your future and theirs. Philosophically, the implications of this action are not terribly different from "making money" in the first place.Governments aren't solely around to make profit. Some are, some aren't. Show me one company that isn't in it for profit and I'll show you several countries whose governments aren't either. The issue is that companies are far more prone to place profit before people than governments. There are exceptions to this, but a company is founded to make profit while a government is usually there to run society. Securing a future and making the greatest possible profit can be completely opposite of eachother on some occasions.
They can do a lot more than interfere. They can sell or buy the stock at inopportune times and really stick it to the Board if they really screw up. I don't see this mentioned here, but the Board is generally elected by the shareholders in the first place, if the company has public stock.This is what I meant with "interfere". I'm sorry that I didn't go into depth and I thank you for doing so. But it shows that it's the shareholders, and not the company workers, that would decide how things are run. In a democratic country, the poor person still has the right to vote and influence decisions the Executive Level makes. In a corporation, there is usually no such influence. If the executive level decides to cut jobs, the workers usually can't prevent it. The best a corporation can be is a democracy for a chosen elite.
Also, if you want to get technical, nothing is controlled deomcratically. When you put people in power--anywhere, you're still putting the power in their hands, not necessarily yours. Decisions are made by one person [although frequently with collective input], not groups of people. True, but not really relevant to the arguement whether a republic or a corporation are best for colonizing a planet.
A coupe of years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that families living in public housing could be ejected from them if any immediate family member was ever found to be in the possession of drugs. In short, if your kid lights up a doobie downtown and gets caught, you're homeless.

See my point? The government does this shit too. As I said earlier, people tend to have similar tendancies when awarded power; government and corporations are hardly exceptions.I see your point and what I was saying is that corporations are more prone to do such shit. Saying that governments can be just as bad isn't a sufficient arguement to reduce my fears.

Governments aren't solely around to make profit. Some are, some aren't. Show me one company that isn't in it for profit and I'll show you several countries whose governments aren't either. The issue is that companies are far more prone to place profit before people than governments.

Well okay, but is a government being more prone to place politics, religion, and rhetoric before people much better? Remember, it's the government that has the power to send people off to die and kill at a whim. Corporations have no such power. Profit sounds a lot better to me; at least in business, two people come to an agreement and both profit.

There are exceptions to this, but a company is founded to make profit while a government is usually there to run society.

Hitler and Stalin wanted to "run society." I don't see how "running society" is such an admirable goal in comparison to profit.

In a democratic country, the poor person still has the right to vote and influence decisions the Executive Level makes.

Oh? I don't remember being able to vote on the Iraq war. Sure, I had the chance to vote for Bush or Kerry. But being able to elect one of two puppets is NOT the same as having any influence in decision-making processes. Maybe if it was a direct democracy, I could agree with you.

It amazes me how some people can always villify corporations while looking to governments to be pure and wholesome. Then again, if you're relying on Hollywood to base your opinions on, its not so amazing. (And it's rather ironic too.)

yeah, trusting the state is a generally bad idea even under the best conditions. but corporations, they are amoral institutions of totalitarian power. that's what they are designed to be. as chomsky puts it,

"Corporations are tyrannical organizations. They are totalitarian institutions. In fact, if you look at them…that what is a corporation…it is an unaccountable private tyranny in which power comes from above, from the owners and the managers, orders are transferred down below and inserted inside the system. You take your orders below and above and you transmit them below. At the very bottom people have the right to rent themselves to this tyrannical system... And if you look at their intellectual roots, it happens that they come out of the same neo-Hegelian conceptions of the rights of organic entities that led to bolshevism and fascism. We have three forms of twentieth century totalitarianism: bolshevism, fascism and corporation. Two of them, fortunately, were dissolved, disappeared mostly. The third remains. It shouldn’t. Power should be in the hand of populations."

Frankly, it's more economically sound to colonise Antarctica then it is to do the same for Mars. Roughtly similar environment -- low air pressure, deadly cold, micro-particals of ice replace the sand in the sand storms, too dark for human tastes much of the time, those natural resources that can be had are very difficult to get to, high cost of living, food must be hydroponically grown or shipped in, no going outside without special protective equipment. But the transportation costs are very small in comparison.

As far as spreading our genetic seed over multiple worlds in case of insertrandomstellarcatastrophy, it is, once again, more economically sound to build giant underground bunkers, make them self-sufficient, colonise them, and wait for the asteroid to land. Either way, human civilisation as we know it will end if a planetkiller asteroid strikes, or nuclear war destroys us.

Private Enterprise is the only way we can ever hope to achieve a civilization that can reach to the stars.

You seem to have spelled 'Starship' with a P and some other spurious typos... ;)

I've got news for you: people are in it for profit, not just corporations. Think about the philosophical implications of forming a colony in the first place: You want to make a place where people can thrive and produce; i.e. you want to secure your future and theirs. Philosophically, the implications of this action are not terribly different from "making money" in the first place.


They can do a lot more than interfere. They can sell or buy the stock at inopportune times and really stick it to the Board if they really screw up. I don't see this mentioned here, but the Board is generally elected by the shareholders in the first place, if the company has public stock.

Also, if you want to get technical, nothing is controlled deomcratically. When you put people in power--anywhere, you're still putting the power in their hands, not necessarily yours. Decisions are made by one person [although frequently with collective input], not groups of people.



A coupe of years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that families living in public housing could be ejected from them if any immediate family member was ever found to be in the possession of drugs. In short, if your kid lights up a doobie downtown and gets caught, you're homeless.

See my point? The government does this shit too. As I said earlier, people tend to have similar tendancies when awarded power; government and corporations are hardly exceptions.

So the Boards of corporations can be elected and fired. But not by the people whose lives they affect, only by the people who stand to make a profit from the corporation's activities. Corporations do not resemble democracies, they are more like a totalitarian oligarchy. Governments may not be that great, but the'yre a hell of a lot more accountable to average people than corporations.

Well okay, but is a government being more prone to place politics, religion, and rhetoric before people much better? Remember, it's the government that has the power to send people off to die and kill at a whim. Corporations have no such power. Profit sounds a lot better to me; at least in business, two people come to an agreement and both profit. I prefer a society that deals with such issues to one in which making money is the only way of measuring status.

Hitler and Stalin wanted to "run society." I don't see how "running society" is such an admirable goal in comparison to profit. And I remember IG Farben and the bunch that profited from it. I'm not denying that Governments do bad. I believe that some corporations would do similar things if we gave them the power.
Oh? I don't remember being able to vote on the Iraq war. Sure, I had the chance to vote for Bush or Kerry. But being able to elect one of two puppets is NOT the same as having any influence in decision-making processes. Maybe if it was a direct democracy, I could agree with you.I don't either, but that was because I was too young to vote against Bush.
And can you give me an example where someone working on the assembly line got to vote for a CEO that was going to fire him?

as for whether mars should be run by the corporations or by a government or by many governments, i say why bother with all that historical baggage. a mars colony would be a true break with history. why mess that up by importing the bad old ideas of earth? we would have the chance to start fresh without prior institutions of power to placate or the dead hand of tradition holding us back. none of that could really transfer over without an organized effort to do so. mars would be the perfect place to really try for a rationally designed system in the fullest sense, one that covers the social, political, and economic aspects of life.

Oh? I don't remember being able to vote on the Iraq war. Sure, I had the chance to vote for Bush or Kerry. But being able to elect one of two puppets is NOT the same as having any influence in decision-making processes. Maybe if it was a direct democracy, I could agree with you.

You had the chance to punish Bush, if you had felt the need, for starting the war by booting him out of office. In a corporate equivalent, the only issue being voted on would be whether the shareholders had profited as a result. Human rights and minimising casualties would only be considerations where they affect profit.

And Free Soviets, I read the Mars trilogy too, seems like a very well thought out set of predictions to me. It's a great series.

yeah, trusting the state is a generally bad idea even under the best conditions. but corporations, they are amoral institutions of totalitarian power. that's what they are designed to be.

Totalitarian power? Please. I can quit a job. You can't quit a totalitarian society. Corporations were designed by people, and is NOT about power. A key clue for this is, governments enforce their 'orders' with guns and laws that apply to your entire life. Corporations enforce their 'orders' with the threat of not being a part of the corporation! That's hardly a threat if you have any job skills. The power there rests with the populations; a company is NOTHING without the right people.

Besides, Chomsky's views on corporate management seem to be a century or two out of date, and referring only to stereotypically Tall organizations. I doubt he's ever done a days honest work in his life, and I can tell you firsthand that many corporations are just businesses with people. Some people are quite happy to have a short organization, a broad one, no 'orders' but suggestions, flowing both ways.


And can you give me an example where someone working on the assembly line got to vote for a CEO that was going to fire him?

It's the managers who do the firing, and they are very accountable to the reports of the workers. At least in my experience. Mega-corporations are easier to villify of course, but there are 25 *million* 'corporations' in this country and surely you don't think every one of them is a giant run by anonymous CEOs firing people left and right while chuckling evilly, wearing the Mr Monopoly tophat and smoking a cigar?

as for whether mars should be run by the corporations or by a government or by many governments, i say why bother with all that historical baggage. a mars colony would be a true break with history. why mess that up by importing the bad old ideas of earth? we would have the chance to start fresh without prior institutions of power to placate or the dead hand of tradition holding us back. none of that could really transfer over without an organized effort to do so. mars would be the perfect place to really try for a rationally designed system in the fullest sense, one that covers the social, political, and economic aspects of life.

A Bogdanovist then, are you? :)

A Bogdanovist then, are you? :)

yeah, pretty much.

it sorta comes with the territory of being an anarchist here on earth.

*sigh* I feel like re-reading Kim Stanley Robinson's "Colors of Mars" Trilogy again.

Source (http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/253777)
Some company wants to colonize Mars. Why do we have to keep colonizing things? Don't we have enough? Earth can't even support itself now. A research base is one thing, but civilians on Mars or the Moon is ridiculous.
We must collonize Mars to reduce the overpopulation on Earth and to create a market for Perky Pat dolls and accessories as well as Can-D.

And if you know what I'm talking about you've read too much Phillip K Dick.

From everything read here so far, it seems like I'd have to say that it will end up being a corporate government, which won't end well, that's for sure. Also, I wouldn't be suprised if this corporation is hired to do penal colony proceedures, since prisons are too expensive here, and there the criminals would be farther away. Also, as for it's inital 50 years, I don't think they would use slavery dirtectly, but actually indentured servitude, they'd pay your freight, and you'd work for them for so many years. Upon completion of contract, they'd give you either a job or enough space to start your own hydroponics farm.

In any case, sign me up, I wanna go!!!

look at the good side at least it won't be an American flag on Mars

But what would you export if your on Mars though? hint: H3 isn't on Mars so I would of thought a lunar corporation would be first (H3 is used in fusion and is also highly valuable and rare on Earth)

Governments aren't solely around to make profit. Some are, some aren't. Show me one company that isn't in it for profit and I'll show you several countries whose governments aren't either. The issue is that companies are far more prone to place profit before people than governments. There are exceptions to this, but a company is founded to make profit while a government is usually there to run society.
As Santa Barbara already pointed out, this does little to assuage our animosity towards government. The problem, as we see it, is that there is no entity that can hold the government accountable to its actions: if a company does a poor job turning a profit, the natural consequences means that the company will inevitably cease to exist. A government, on the other hand, is prefectly capable of acting in whatever manner it sees fit. Bascially it comes down to which I prefer: a) not buying a product because I don't like the business practices of its creators, or b) armed revolution.

Corporations are invariably easier to keep an eye on than any government, and the proper recorse for incompetence or fraud is also much easier [and infintaely more productive] in the former instance as well.

Securing a future and making the greatest possible profit can be completely opposite of eachother on some occasions.
Well, yeah. Generally because the greatest possible profit requires some form of deception, but I fear now you're attempting to blur the line between profit and fraud. When I talk about securing the greatest possible profit, I'm referring to the ability to do so via legitimate means--by means of trade, not fear, threats, or fraud. When the left talks about the greatest possible profit, they tell stories about price gouging and false advertising: that's not business, that's fraud.

For this reason, we're very likely talking past each other on this particular issue. I'm fully prepared to admit that corporations will employ unjust means to fulfill their [ultimately legitimate] ends, but just because people can do bad things has never been a very good excuse for not letting them do anything at all.

This is what I meant with "interfere". I'm sorry that I didn't go into depth and I thank you for doing so. But it shows that it's the shareholders, and not the company workers, that would decide how things are run.
Actually, most of the big companies are offering stock options as part of their benefits packages [which, by the way, are definately not required by law], so in a lot of cases, this couldn't be farther from the truth.

Also, its not the company worker's job to decide into what direction the business should head: that's the domain of the Board and... you know... the people who own, or started the company. Without them, there wouldn't be a job to direct or grumble about in the first place. Anyone who wants to can buy a public stock in any company that offers it: if the workers want to have a say in the direction of their company, then they can buy stock just like anyone else can.

In a democratic country, the poor person still has the right to vote and influence decisions the Executive Level makes. In a corporation, there is usually no such influence. If the executive level decides to cut jobs, the workers usually can't prevent it. The best a corporation can be is a democracy for a chosen elite.
Yes, and as I noted above, this is because those are [generally] the people [i]who are in charge of the corporation. Even if you wanted to institute some kind of collectivist Utopian work environment, one guy or a small group of guys would still have to be in effective control: nothing would ever really change.

Also, the Executive Level generally isn't thrilled about cutting jobs either: generally its a sign of decreased productivity or runaway labor costs and either way it means bad things for the business.

Basically, you're trying to tell people what to do with their property. The workers, per se, don't belong to the plutocrat, but the job itself certainly does because, lets face it--he was the guy who fronted the money for that equipment you're using in the first place. He is the guy [broadly speaking] that paid to have the factory built in the first place and, above all else, he signs your check too.

You pay for all of that and then tell me how you'd feel if someone came along and said you had to increase your employees' wages by 30% despite lagging profit or go to jail. You study and work your ass off for 15 or 20 years to start your own business and then tell me its justified to let a faceless mass of people make your business decisions for you.

True, but not really relevant to the arguement whether a republic or a corporation are best for colonizing a planet.
And if decisions can't be made by large groups of people [as you've implicitly admitted by this very statement--although I'm sure you'll want to challenge my statement after reading this], then why should we be putting large groups of people in decision making positions?

I see your point and what I was saying is that corporations are more prone to do such shit.
I can't say as I'm entirely sure about that. If you want to make the argument [as most people do] that the Industrial Revolution was the height of corporate oppression--and compare it to what is undeniably the State's height of oppression [mass genocide, labor camps, etc etc] then I think the comparison speaks for itself.

Saying that governments can be just as bad isn't a sufficient arguement to reduce my fears.
Actually, I'm trying to make the point that, on average, governments are much worse. Even if you are prepared to admit that they can be "just as bad," then why doesn't it do anything to make you reconsider your position? Why should we be forced to accept pain with either alternative?

So the Boards of corporations can be elected and fired. But not by the people whose lives they affect, only by the people who stand to make a profit from the corporation's activities. Corporations do not resemble democracies, they are more like a totalitarian oligarchy. Governments may not be that great, but the'yre a hell of a lot more accountable to average people than corporations.
Nice try, but as I pointed out above, shares are offered to anyone who wants to buy them. So basically, it's run by the people who care enough about the company to throw some coin at it.

Besides, I never said they 'resembled democracies.' Democracy should, in my opinion, be taken with a grain of salt because lets face it: large groups of people are still very capable of making some astoundingly stupid decisions. I prefer the mechanics of a Republic myself.

Nice try, but as I pointed out above, shares are offered to anyone who wants to buy them. So basically, it's run by the people who care enough about the company to throw some coin at it.

Besides, I never said they 'resembled democracies.' Democracy should, in my opinion, be taken with a grain of salt because lets face it: large groups of people are still very capable of making some astoundingly stupid decisions. I prefer the mechanics of a Republic myself.
Please. Most people who own shares are in it for the money, and even if through some reason you managed to have a corporate republic, the amount of money it would take to get something close to resembling a voting block worthy of being heard is astronomical.

Please. Most people who own shares are in it for the money, and even if through some reason you managed to have a corporate republic, the amount of money it would take to get something close to resembling a voting block worthy of being heard is astronomical.
And this means...what to me? You're basically telling me here that people who invest in a company because they want to turn $1 into $2 are "in it for the money," a fact which can be rather easily observed by noting just what stocks are meant to do in the first place [go up]. So it's sort of an incentive to not fuck things up. If you ask me, it's a better incentive than "just feeling good about it," which is the prevailing reason why I "should" be doing various "altruistic" things with my time and money.

And this means...what to me? You're basically telling me here that people who invest in a company because they want to turn $1 into $2 are "in it for the money," a fact which can be rather easily observed by noting just what stocks are meant to do in the first place [go up]. So it's sort of an incentive to not fuck things up. If you ask me, it's a better incentive than "just feeling good about it," which is the prevailing reason why I "should" be doing various "altruistic" things with my time and money.
Almost no one buys shares in companies (besides raiders and people looking to take control of it) for the joy of voting on how to run it.

On the original topic matter: Having a corperation settle mars will fail miserably. Corperations simply can't match the amount of money needed to keep a colony running, it isn't a one time thing. The british example has been floated around, to which I say, what about the British? The colonies founded for profit (mainly the virginian colonies) failed miserably, and had to be bailed out by the British government (that's why they became royal colonies).

Yes, I understand that. I'm looking for something new here.

You're basically saying the same thing that you said to begin with: there's no need to rehash it. I understand that point and I've already answered to it. You're free to reply how you will, but I'm not generally thrilled with debate opponents who say the same one or two things over and over again with different words.

I know they're in it for the money, if you read my post again you can see that much spelled out in black and white. I'm trying to point out why this isn't a bad thing.

On the original topic matter: Having a corperation settle mars will fail miserably. Corperations simply can't match the amount of money needed to keep a colony running, it isn't a one time thing. The british example has been floated around, to which I say, what about the British? The colonies founded for profit (mainly the virginian colonies) failed miserably, and had to be bailed out by the British government (that's why they became royal colonies).
Yeah, you see, I'm actually fairly ambivalent about this because, in all probability, I'll be dead before it actually happens. There aren't any indigenous people to oppress or land to take away, so it's a cleaner slate that [hopefully] should be a little harder to fuck up if we do end up using the State to handle this.

I've kind of gotten off on a side tangent about the nature of corporations, but in all honesty I can see no greater reason to ban them from trying as I could to see banning anyone else.

Yes, I understand that. I'm looking for something new here.

You're basically saying the same thing that you said to begin with: there's no need to rehash it. I understand that point and I've already answered to it. You're free to reply how you will, but I'm not generally thrilled with debate opponents who say the same one or two things over and over again with different words.

I know they're in it for the money, if you read my post again you can see that much spelled out in black and white. I'm trying to point out why this isn't a bad thing.
Sorry, wasn't quite sure if you missed the point of it, which I still think you have:

You can't run a corperate republic, at least not now, that way. Very rarely do they listen to minority share holders, even if they band together in massive proxy fights, and it tends to be strict majority rule, almost to the point of it being a dictatorship of the majority, and the majority of the shares tend to lie in the hands of one or two people (depending on the company, ofc).

Yeah, you see, I'm actually fairly ambivalent about this because, in all probability, I'll be dead before it actually happens. There aren't any indigenous people to oppress or land to take away, so it's a cleaner slate that [hopefully] should be a little harder to fuck up if we do end up using the State to handle this.

I've kind of gotten off on a side tangent about the nature of corporations, but in all honesty I can see no greater reason to ban them from trying as I could to see banning anyone else.
I do, if it's going to end up killing lots of people and end up causing the government to come to the rescue and bail them out.

Sorry, wasn't quite sure if you missed the point of it, which I still think you have:

You can't run a corperate republic, at least not now, that way. Very rarely do they listen to minority share holders, even if they band together in massive proxy fights, and it tends to be strict majority rule, almost to the point of it being a dictatorship of the majority, and the majority of the shares tend to lie in the hands of one or two people (depending on the company, ofc).
With God as my witness, I haven't the foggiest notion what in the hell you're talking about. "Corporate Republic?" What's that?

I think you're reading too heavily into my observations concerning the nature of stockholders. I think what you're getting at here is that even if people own stock, the Board and/or the CEO doesn't have to listen to them. Politically, this is the equivalent of a citizen complaining that their politicians aren't listening to them: a regular occurance in any government [where's my congressman, dammit?!], to say nothing of corporate comparions.

Ultimately, however, I feel that the company's owners--the people who are intimately familiar with the day to day administration, finances, and market position of the company in question, should have ultimate authority over what happens to it. Still, I would argue that a CEO would be more likely to listen to his shareholders than politicians would be likely to listen to a comparably large group of people. CEOs steer their companies with a combination of their own guidance and perhaps with some ideas and incentives from the board--a much smaller demographic than governments employ.

To put it simply, corporations have a lot less shareholders than the country has voters. As a singular entity, as a stockholder you theorietically wield far more power over it than your own government. You could easily sway the direction of said company with the moral support of some thousands of people as opposed to directing your government with the aid of some millions.

With God as my witness, I haven't the foggiest notion what in the hell you're talking about. "Corporate Republic?" What's that?

I think you're reading too heavily into my observations concerning the nature of stockholders. I think what you're getting at here is that even if people own stock, the Board and/or the CEO doesn't have to listen to them. Politically, this is the equivalent of a citizen complaining that their politicians aren't listening to them: a regular occurence in any government [where's my congressman, dammit?!], to say nothing of corporate comparisons.

Ultimately, however, I feel that the company's owners--the people who are intimately familiar with the day to day administration, finances, and market position of the company in question, should have ultimate authority over what happens to it. Still, I would argue that a CEO would be more likely to listen to his shareholders than politicians would be likely to listen to a comparably large group of people. CEOs steer their companies with a combination of their own guidance and perhaps with some ideas and incentives from the board--a much smaller demographic than governments employ.

To put it simply, corporations have a lot less shareholders than the country has voters. As a singular entity, as a stockholder you theoretically wield far more power over it than your own government. You could easily sway the direction of said company with the moral support of some thousands of people as opposed to directing your government with the aid of some millions.

Corporate Republic is a state run by a corporation, basically. The right to vote is restricted to shareholders in relation to the amount of shares owned.

From what I've seen in proxy fights/board disputes over the running of corporations, the minority shareholders are generally ignored, and upper management (especially in family run companies) tend to have a near total control over the voting shares of a stock. I don't see how a corporation going to mars would be any different, and if they have most of the shares, especially a majority of the voting shares, tied up in a few people, the minority shareholders will be ignored. It isn't like with regular government- one person, one vote, where you really can't ignore people and at the worst some one in the government will share your views (remember, at the local level there may be less then a thousand people voting to elect someone). That simply doesn't happen in the traditional corporate structure.

A lot of people fail to realize that Government and Corporations are both run by these somewhat large, hairless creatures called "humans." Many have similar tendancies, and they tend to act the same way with power whether their office has a logo or an eagle on it.


"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."
--- The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein

To those who argue either pro-corporation/anti-government or pro-government/anti-corporation: you're both wrong.

Have the Martians responded with any sort of official statement? It would be interesting to hear their take on being colonized.

Crap. I can think of little worse than corporations running Mars.

Unless somehow Nazis ran Mars. That would be much worse. But I bet it would make for an awesome movie starring Ahnold Schwartzanegger or Van Damme.

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."
--- The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein

To those who argue either pro-corporation/anti-government or pro-government/anti-corporation: you're both wrong.

you're my hero of the day, that quote fits perfectly.

Source (http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/253777)
Some company wants to colonize Mars. Why do we have to keep colonizing things? Don't we have enough? Earth can't even support itself now. A research base is one thing, but civilians on Mars or the Moon is ridiculous.


Because it is the human spirit to always explore and expand, geezus dont you know some people just crave adventure like that...its getting harder to do now a days since most the globe is pretty well exploreded baring a few areas.

I'm glad everyone is talking about slavery, despite the fact there are no freaking native people on Mars.

I'm glad everyone is talking about slavery, despite the fact there are no freaking native people on Mars.

they wouldn't make good slaves anyway. too small and too uppity and too green.

I'm glad everyone is talking about slavery, despite the fact there are no freaking native people on Mars.

They would be referring to colonists, who once they reached Mars would be in no position to refuse any set of work conditions, even slavery. It would be pretty simple to use a misleading ad campaign to recruit workers and prevent them from contacting Earth. It wouldn't necessarily be slavery as that might not be the most profitable way, but the corporation would have absolute control over colonists as they would control all life-support.

Melkor, you're right about states being far worse in their extremes, but you are lumping in every kind of monarchy, dictatorship and theocracy. What I'm saying is that while cold pursuit of profit is better than the kind of motives behind genocide, a democratic/republican state is better. These states are nowhere near perfect but at least everyone affected by the state's decisions have a say into its running. In a state workers form a huge voting block which must at least be fooled into being content, while in a corporation all that matters is that they have no other realistic option but to keep working, as they have no real say in how things are run.

Ever played the game Red Faction? I've always thought that that was a rather good demonstration of the problems of a corporate colonial project.

And to those who are complaining about us messing up Mars... I agree with you. Why should we break up the empty barrens of that beautiful dusty planet with greenery? Fill that empty atmosphere with carbon dioxide? I mean it'd be terrible if we moved all industry off world and turned earth into a kind of park. And, horror beyond horrors, think of all that metal on mars. Everyone knows metal and other forms of building material are terrible byproducts of industrialism, we should definitely avoid acquiring them from mars. [/sarcasm]

Errm, CO2 is actually a large component of the Martian Atmosphere. At least you can get oxygen from it...

I had some thoughts on this whole Mars colonization thing. It has it's merits. I can see a lot of good reasons. And of course, I can see many obstacles that present a blindingly apparent reason for not doing it. Cost.


So far, only the US government has ever produced a vehicle (thus far) capable of an Earth to Orbit trips w/ a payload even minute fraction of what would be required for a tiny marginally sustainable living environment.
The Saturn V rockets from the Apollo project and shuttle are the only two significant lifting vehicles in existance capable of moving the resources into orbit. Just getting the items to orbit is a huge restriction. The largest energy expense is the initial boost from the surface of the earth into orbit. Once there, however, you still need a significant boost to leave earth orbit and intercept mars' orbit.

Then the other pressing obstacle. If you're considering moving people to mars, you must consider the enormous distance. Now while the energy costs to get from earth to mars may be a fraction of earth to orbit, you're dealing with at least a year in transit. Zero gravity takes a heavy toll on the human body. In transit the body will lose a significant amount of bone mass. Frequent excersise in transit will only decrease the rate of degeneration. Naturally, this will make the transition back to a gravity well w/ even 1/4 the strength of Earth's less than pleasant. After a long period on Mars, it would be very difficult for anyone to even consider returning to earth. Once you've returned, you'd likely have to spend weeks in rehab.

Now, presuming you could find a way to deal with all these really really expensive obstacles...


A corporation managing the colonization of Mars: This is something more or less without precedent (besides antartica). Terrestrial colonial exploits have usually been in search of one thing, material resources at low cost. These resources are mainly gained at cheap cost from local populations. Mars, by contrast, would have material resources without local populations...or a breathable atmosphere...

On Mars atmosphere. Can't breath it. No way no how. Not enough of it. IIRC, something like .01% as dense as Earth's atmosphere; likely a better vacuum than we can create in labs. On greenhouse gases. While the atmosphere is very thin, it fortunately is comprised by a very large percentage of C02. Earth is bathed in a far higher concentration of sunlight, so more C02 risks environmentally catastrophic climate change.

Mars has a weak dead atmosphere that needs thickening, bathed in little light, so any extra C02 and water vapor you could get into the air would dramatically moderate the temperature.

Now on mars vs. moon. vs. earth. Earth is finite. It is becoming more finite by the moment. Population is exploding everywhere, we are ripping through fossil fuels, tearing through the very limited supply of rare earth metals and radioactives. Once these are depleted we will need another energy source, even if we figure out how the hell to get more energy out of a fusion reaction than you put into it.

Assuming you're highly intererested in colonizing the rest of the solar system, you need several things. Vast amounts of material resources, volatiles, oxides, rare earth metals for alloys, large amounts of iron, and lastly...plentiful water. Radioactives are always useful materials as well. And lastly, you need very advanced industrial equipment built to make use of all that stuff.

The Earth:
Cons: Gravity well is ENORMOUS compared to the moon or mars. The costs of surface to orbit/space is mind boggling. The x prize thing was great. they reached the edge of the atmosphere. This takes a ton of energy. To get to orbit, it takes about 100 times as much more.
Pros: However, the earth has man power, brainpower, industrial resources, materials. The majority of everything required for getting to either moon or mars would have to come from earth.

The Moon:
Pros: Gravity well is tiny. Cheap surface to orbit. Very cheap comparatively to travel between earth and moon. Time is about 3 days vs. 1 year to Mars.
You can communicate back and forth with something like a 3 second time lag (i'm kinda pullin' numbers out of my ass).

Cons: Low gravity means low density. Low in heavy metals; ie. iron. Radiocatives is low. Any water that does exist is going to be sparse and difficult to find. The major resource would be to extract some volatiles from the lunar regolith. It's pretty poor in materials though. Little advantage in using as a launchpad to the rest of the solar system.

Mars:
Pros: Gravity well is considerably less than earth's providing relatively low cost transport to orbit and exporting back to earth. More heavy metals; more effectively non-renewable resources. Potentially large sources of water near the poles.

Cons: Distance from earth. Cost to get to orbit. Physical cost to persons willing to travel the grueling distance in zero gravity.


Now on polity of Corporation vs. Government. Consider that the majority of human civilization will still reside on Earth. That means the majority of social contacts will still live there. As will everything that one knows. Also, that bulk of physical technology and means of technological production will reside there. The primary reason to want colonies is to be able to import large amounts of bulk materials cheaper than you can find or otherwise create at home. Due to the very nature that Mars is NOT HABITABLE, this creates a necessarily strong reliance by the corporate entity on the goodwill of Earth and its many governments. This inherently makes the corporation and the subsequent colony VERY accountable. Now how responsive the governments are to the constituent population, who's to say? I'm not making any judgements on which is better. Corruption is equally prevalent in both private and public spheres.

A martian gov't would have to tread a tightrope walk between keeping its employees pleased--it would require many high skilled workers--and keeping the governments on earth happy that house the corporations and people who provide the material, human, and technological resources to make a human habitat sustainable off world. I imagine this would tend to lead toward political moderation. It would be *decades* before any sort of material export system could be fully implemented once any colonization work had begun. It would probably be upwards of a century before becoming profitable.

(Formerly the Jovian Worlds)

Who exactly owns Mars? The first one to get there? The UN? Hopefully it will not be any company. Ever.

If these people want to colonize Mars so bad I do not think that we should prevent them from doing so. It is still progress, it still can provide technological gain. I think that mankind should go around and conquer anything in its path.

I strongly doubt that any major evils will occur because of this due to the fact that Mars would be heavily reliant on skilled labor. Skilled labor is generally harder to control without using appeasement because of the fact that skills are somewhat rare, skilled labor people are often smarter/more skilled than average and a poorly done job can be so disastrous.

Who exactly owns Mars? The first one to get there? The UN? Hopefully it will not be any company. Ever.


Who owns Mars? Who ever occupies it and establishes a presence first. That's the way it always has been. Can you realistically see that changing? It's how the world works. Realistically, a project like shooting for a colonization of the solar system is something so financially taxing, it would be physically impossible for any companies currently in existence to even consider taking it on.