Author Topic: Mars vs Antarctica  (Read 38482 times)

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #20 on: 07/14/2014 03:29 am »
1)  I think we should avoid using antarctica since people merely need to point to treaties that have been signed preventing...

2) I personally don't take any talk of Mars colonization seriously by groups who are not doing such 'colony demonstrators' here on earth. I think it is just so obviously necessary, and incredibly cheap compared to space flight. If you are not doing this you are just doing PR

This doesn't mean I do not take SpaceX seriously. I think Elon Musk has been very clear that his contribution is to revolutionize the launch industry
1) There are generally laws against settling willy-nilly in remote parts of the places you noted.  Canada has vast unpopulated boreal forest "crown land".  Alaska, Amazon, Siberia, ...similar restrictions.  If Canadians could just toss up a cool shelter out in crown land somewhere, there wouldn't be ga-zillions of RV's, trailers, campers headed there and removed during various times of all seasons.  There would be little cabins and people as thick as the mosquitos. 

2) Many folks on this site are also members of the Mars Society (which does stuff like Mars Desert Research Station, Flashline Arctic Station, etc.).  Elon has an observatory at the desert one named after him.  He's helped with funding the Mars Society in the past for sure.  Not sure of his current involvement level.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2014 03:32 am by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #21 on: 07/14/2014 05:05 am »
If people start mining asteroids in the main belt (which they may do because there are lots of precious metals there), Phobos and Deimos will be good stopover points. And a colony on Mars could support those Phobos and Deimos stopover points better than Earth.

Direct flights from Earth would make more sense. synodic periods are shorter and transit times (for Hohmann orbits) only slightly longer (Earth - Ceres 1.84 years, Mars - Ceres 1.57 years. from Jerry Pournelle's A Step Farther Out).

In the long range, I think Ceres will have a very large role in the development of the Solar System.  While I see Mars as the most suitable for a colony, I see Ceres as the hub of asteroid belt operations.

dV from Ceres to Mars it about half that of Ceres to Earth, but I suspect the launch windows are spaced further apart.

Ceres (and asteroid belt) economies are IMO much further away than Mars.  If things go well with SpaceX, Mars colonization is less than 20 years away.  I don't see meaningful Asteroid mining happening within this time frame under any scenario, and so I can't see it affecting the Mars colony.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Nine_thermidor

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Striking from a hidden base
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #22 on: 07/14/2014 06:06 am »
Both Chile and Argentina (two non-rich developing countries) have colonization projects on Antarctica with schools, churches, babies being born, etc. Sure, they're small, but they exist.

I wonder how many more times you'll have to repeat this until people stop posting the false claim that no-one wants to colonize Antarctica.. and therefore no-one wants to colonize Mars - which is already patently obvious as there's a long line of people waiting to go. I've heard of never letting facts get in the way of a good argument, but this has got to be the twelfth time you've presented the facts and still threads like this one keep getting created.

Thanks for being more patient than seems warranted, at least to me.



Firstly, I haven't read every thread on every part of this forum, mostly having lurked around the SpaceX parts previously. I prefixed my OP with 'hope this is in the right place and not too much of a dupe', it was subsequently moved here from SpaceX general. So sorry if folk are having to repeat themselves! Just blame the noob.

That said, I think this argument is disingenuous for two reasons.

1. I know the treaty is preventing the legal settlement of Antarctica *now* but that there was plenty of time before the treaty came into force in 1961 when there was a conspicuous absence of large scale migration and settling attempts by wealthy individuals (you could even say, back then, that there was more impetus for those kind of people to migrate, with the ever-present threat of nuclear war, Antarctica might be considered to be nicely out of the way).

2. The Chilean and Argentinian villages are heavily government-supported boon-doggles intended to assert ownership of their claim -  'it's been settled by our people' (their claim overlaps with Argentina's and The Brits'). This is not a reasonable example of spontaneous migration to Antarctica that disproves my original point; unless the settlement popped up spontaneously, funded by a lot of wealthy private people who just wanted to go and live there, it doesn't count as a comparator for the motivation that is proposed to mass colonise Mars.
The Martian equivalent of those villages would be a e.g. US government funded 'colony' with citizens picked to go and live there for a few years at a time, for reasons of claiming it for America. This is clearly not what is being promoted as the support behind 1000s of colonists going to Mars.

It might be a very real reason for different countries to get lots of people up there though. We've relied on tacit conflict to motivate us to reach humanity expanding achievements in the past, why not now?

I realise I may be coming off a little negative, so I'll try and come up with a non-cold-war style pathway for colonisation:
If early government research bases finds some large high-grade diamond deposit (or something else of high value and low weight that can easily be exported), possibly that could draw more people for exploitation, who then improve their living environment and need services to the point that still more people come to provide those. At this point everyone on Mars is the employee of government or a corporation. Eventually life on Mars will look like a developing frontier society rather than a barren rock of hazard and maybe then the wealthy retiree/private entrepreneur crowd might start to spend their money to move there. But I don't think they will be the pioneers.

« Last Edit: 07/14/2014 06:10 am by Nine_thermidor »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #23 on: 07/14/2014 06:18 am »
While there are lots of people visiting Antarctica or working there for a few months, how many have settled there on a permanent basis?

Also the human presence on Antarctica basically exists because of government-sponsored research and tourism. I suspect it could the same on Mars at the some point, but not for a long time to come.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2014 06:23 am by Oli »

Offline Alf Fass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • The Abyss
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 83
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #24 on: 07/14/2014 06:19 am »
Both Chile and Argentina (two non-rich developing countries) have colonization projects on Antarctica with schools, churches, babies being born, etc. Sure, they're small, but they exist.

I wonder how many more times you'll have to repeat this until people stop posting the false claim that no-one wants to colonize Antarctica.. and therefore no-one wants to colonize Mars - which is already patently obvious as there's a long line of people waiting to go. I've heard of never letting facts get in the way of a good argument, but this has got to be the twelfth time you've presented the facts and still threads like this one keep getting created.

Thanks for being more patient than seems warranted, at least to me.



Firstly, I haven't read every thread on every part of this forum, mostly having lurked around the SpaceX parts previously. I prefixed my OP with 'hope this is in the right place and not too much of a dupe', it was subsequently moved here from SpaceX general. So sorry if folk are having to repeat themselves! Just blame the noob.

That said, I think this argument is disingenuous for two reasons.

1. I know the treaty is preventing the legal settlement of Antarctica *now* but that there was plenty of time before the treaty came into force in 1961 when there was a conspicuous absence of large scale migration and settling attempts by wealthy individuals (you could even say, back then, that there was more impetus for those kind of people to migrate, with the ever-present threat of nuclear war, Antarctica might be considered to be nicely out of the way).

2. The Chilean and Argentinian villages are heavily government-supported boon-doggles intended to assert ownership of their claim -  'it's been settled by our people' (their claim overlaps with Argentina's and The Brits'). This is not a reasonable example of spontaneous migration to Antarctica that disproves my original point; unless the settlement popped up spontaneously, funded by a lot of wealthy private people who just wanted to go and live there, it doesn't count as a comparator for the motivation that is proposed to mass colonise Mars.
The Martian equivalent of those villages would be a e.g. US government funded 'colony' with citizens picked to go and live there for a few years at a time, for reasons of claiming it for America. This is clearly not what is being promoted as the support behind 1000s of colonists going to Mars.

It might be a very real reason for different countries to get lots of people up there though. We've relied on tacit conflict to motivate us to reach humanity expanding achievements in the past, why not now?

I realise I may be coming off a little negative, so I'll try and come up with a non-cold-war style pathway for colonisation:
If early government research bases finds some large high-grade diamond deposit (or something else of high value and low weight that can easily be exported), possibly that could draw more people for exploitation, who then improve their living environment and need services to the point that still more people come to provide those. At this point everyone on Mars is the employee of government or a corporation. Eventually life on Mars will look like a developing frontier society rather than a barren rock of hazard and maybe then the wealthy retiree/private entrepreneur crowd might start to spend their money to move there. But I don't think they will be the pioneers.



I think you've been very reasonable, QuantumG I think misrepresents the skeptic view in his claim that  it's claimed "that no-one wants to colonize Antarctica.. and therefore no-one wants to colonize Mars"

Everyone knows there's lots and lots of people who'd love to be involved in colonizing Mars, the skepticism is about whether the colonists (Mars or the Antarctic) could actually survive long term, let alone prosper.
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?
John Maynard Keynes

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #25 on: 07/14/2014 06:24 am »
No worries, Nine.

While I've heard the Antarctica argument before, I've never heard it refuted on those grounds before, and I've been hanging around here for a while.  I guess I missed it too.

For that matter, there are 20 responses before you were told off, all of them oblivious to the question's alleged futility...


That said, it is still not a good analogy, for the reasons stated above. Antarctica is basically too close for the concept of a colony to really makes sense.  It's like the oil fields of the Arctic.  You don't need colonies to lay claims over them, as they are within military range of existing "colonies" such as the US and Russia.

And still some countries, as pointed out, are trying to colonize there.  (Interestingly, countries that cannot project military force for thousands of miles)

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #26 on: 07/14/2014 06:33 am »
Everyone knows there's lots and lots of people who'd love to be involved in colonizing Mars

The question is whether they would go there for a couple of years or stay permanently. My money is on the former.

Offline Nine_thermidor

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Striking from a hidden base
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #27 on: 07/14/2014 07:04 am »
No worries, Nine.

While I've heard the Antarctica argument before, I've never heard it refuted on those grounds before, and I've been hanging around here for a while.  I guess I missed it too.

For that matter, there are 20 responses before you were told off, all of them oblivious to the question's alleged futility...


That said, it is still not a good analogy, for the reasons stated above. Antarctica is basically too close for the concept of a colony to really makes sense.  It's like the oil fields of the Arctic.  You don't need colonies to lay claims over them, as they are within military range of existing "colonies" such as the US and Russia.

And still some countries, as pointed out, are trying to colonize there.  (Interestingly, countries that cannot project military force for thousands of miles)

Thanks meekGee! Reassured I'm not micturating windwards!

I still contend that there are no examples on Earth of a large group wealthy private individuals choosing to leave luxury, family and semi-assured longevity behind in favour of a hard, limited life in a harsh environment.
Poor economic migrants yes. Occasional eccentric rich people yes. People moved there, either avowedly or not, by governments, yes. But not 1000s of 1-5%ers spending large chunks of wealth to be millions of miles from friends & loved ones, luxury, golf courses and advanced hospitals.

I think you are right though, the main possible flaw in my logic is the pitfall of the 'uniformitarian' approach; assuming what goes for Earth-based examples is what will go for another whole planet. We of course have no idea really of what the actual self-funding demand will be, and won't have until we are a lot closer to being able to move people there. Perhaps for this reason the Antarctica argument is something of a strawman. I certainly hope so.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #28 on: 07/14/2014 07:09 am »
No worries, Nine.

While I've heard the Antarctica argument before, I've never heard it refuted on those grounds before, and I've been hanging around here for a while.  I guess I missed it too.

For that matter, there are 20 responses before you were told off, all of them oblivious to the question's alleged futility...


That said, it is still not a good analogy, for the reasons stated above. Antarctica is basically too close for the concept of a colony to really makes sense.  It's like the oil fields of the Arctic.  You don't need colonies to lay claims over them, as they are within military range of existing "colonies" such as the US and Russia.

And still some countries, as pointed out, are trying to colonize there.  (Interestingly, countries that cannot project military force for thousands of miles)

Thanks meekGee! Reassured I'm not micturating windwards!

I still contend that there are no examples on Earth of a large group wealthy private individuals choosing to leave luxury, family and semi-assured longevity behind in favour of a hard, limited life in a harsh environment.
Poor economic migrants yes. Occasional eccentric rich people yes. People moved there, either avowedly or not, by governments, yes. But not 1000s of 1-5%ers spending large chunks of wealth to be millions of miles from friends & loved ones, luxury, golf courses and advanced hospitals.

I think you are right though, the main possible flaw in my logic is the pitfall of the 'uniformitarian' approach; assuming what goes for Earth-based examples is what will go for another whole planet. We of course have no idea really of what the actual self-funding demand will be, and won't have until we are a lot closer to being able to move people there. Perhaps for this reason the Antarctica argument is something of a strawman. I certainly hope so.

np

The scenario of " 1000s of 1-5%ers spending large chunks of wealth to be millions of miles from friends & loved ones, luxury, golf courses and advanced hospitals." was never one of my favorites, and I didn't see it as one of the prominent ideas in this forum.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #29 on: 07/14/2014 07:16 am »
I still contend that there are no examples on Earth of a large group wealthy private individuals choosing to leave luxury, family and semi-assured longevity behind in favour of a hard, limited life in a harsh environment.

Read "Amana: The Community of True Inspiration" by Bertha H. M Shambaugh. History of rich people who moved from a developed society to the Americas to get away from such dastardly things as compulsory schooling and taxes, formed a colony, then moved again when the railroad brought civilization to their doorstep - a problem they managed to solve for a time in their new location by buying the railroad station. They were sued repeatedly for being too good at building wealth - the general belief at the time being that religious organizations should be charitable - and won.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Nine_thermidor

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Striking from a hidden base
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #30 on: 07/14/2014 07:24 am »

np

The scenario of " 1000s of 1-5%ers spending large chunks of wealth to be millions of miles from friends & loved ones, luxury, golf courses and advanced hospitals." was never one of my favorites, and I didn't see it as one of the prominent ideas in this forum.

This is why this discussion was originally posed in SpaceX general. I was specifically trying to compare the Musk vision for Mars colonisation via private wealthy paying passengers with the lack of such behaviour in Antarctica, because that is the case that Elon has made repeatedly as the business case for transporting people to Mars. Maybe I should have hung a few extra mentions of SpaceX around the title/intro...here it looks like I'm saying Mars colonisation can never happen because millionairs don't want to play golf there, which is not my meaning at all! :)

Offline Nine_thermidor

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Striking from a hidden base
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #31 on: 07/14/2014 07:27 am »
I still contend that there are no examples on Earth of a large group wealthy private individuals choosing to leave luxury, family and semi-assured longevity behind in favour of a hard, limited life in a harsh environment.

Read "Amana: The Community of True Inspiration" by Bertha H. M Shambaugh. History of rich people who moved from a developed society to the Americas to get away from such dastardly things as compulsory schooling and taxes, formed a colony, then moved again when the railroad brought civilization to their doorstep - a problem they managed to solve for a time in their new location by buying the railroad station. They were sued repeatedly for being too good at building wealth - the general belief at the time being that religious organizations should be charitable - and won.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that example, sounds interesting. The process didn't continue though presumably? I'm reminded of the Mennonites in Paraguay. I suppose it would be a pity to rely on small religious sects to promote interplanetary migration, but if it works, it works.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2014 07:33 am by Nine_thermidor »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #32 on: 07/14/2014 07:33 am »
Anyway, I'd be surprised if the altruistic 'protect the species' angle will prove to be a sufficient motivating factor to achieve migration on the scale of what is being envisioned.

I think you're greatly underestimating the altruistic angle.  People want to feel their lives have meaning.  They want to feel they are part of something important.  They want to feel they are leaving a legacy.  They want to feel like they are special, that they aren't just like a billion other people.  They want to feel like their actions will strongly shape the future.  All those are very strong motivations, and Mars pays off for all of them.

Keep in mind that for a successful Mars colony you don't need most people to decide to move to Mars.  One in a thousand is millions of colonists.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #33 on: 07/14/2014 07:36 am »

np

The scenario of " 1000s of 1-5%ers spending large chunks of wealth to be millions of miles from friends & loved ones, luxury, golf courses and advanced hospitals." was never one of my favorites, and I didn't see it as one of the prominent ideas in this forum.

This is why this discussion was originally posed in SpaceX general. I was specifically trying to compare the Musk vision for Mars colonisation via private wealthy paying passengers with the lack of such behaviour in Antarctica, because that is the case that Elon has made repeatedly as the business case for transporting people to Mars. Maybe I should have hung a few extra mentions of SpaceX around the title/intro...here it looks like I'm saying Mars colonisation can never happen because millionairs don't want to play golf there, which is not my meaning at all! :)

Musk referred to $500k ticket price as a threshold beyond which colonization will take off.

$500k can be your indebtedness for the company that paid your ticket, since you can pay that off in just a few years worth of work.

It is also a reasonable amount for a company to invest in an individual it is sending off to Mars to do work for it, so really, no indebtedness needed.

I actually find this number unnecessarily low.  If Alcoa wants to start producing Aluminum on Mars, it will have to send some equipment and a basic crew.  This investment will include crew transport, equipment development, equipment transport, and crew upkeep.   I think a few million dollars will get lost in that total.

I'd like to see a point where companies can try setting up a presence on Mars for even $1B.  There are plenty of companies that will take that kind of gamble on a new strategic direction.   

There are many companies that make >$1B/quarter, and so can take $1-2B, over 5-10 years, as a trial balloon.

... Not to mention if the price-to-play gets closer to $100M.   I don't see the need for $0.5M ticket price to achieve that.   That number is for stage 2 or 3, where individuals go on a whim, and then it's really not that big a deal to get $500k, part in cash, part in deferred wages for whoever is going to employ you there.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #34 on: 07/14/2014 07:42 am »
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that example, sounds interesting. The process didn't continue though presumably?

What do you mean? The Amana still exist. US history is littered with other examples of religious colonization, but the Amana are the super-wealthy exemplar. Although I expect more people are aware of the Mormons.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #35 on: 07/14/2014 07:44 am »

np

The scenario of " 1000s of 1-5%ers spending large chunks of wealth to be millions of miles from friends & loved ones, luxury, golf courses and advanced hospitals." was never one of my favorites, and I didn't see it as one of the prominent ideas in this forum.

This is why this discussion was originally posed in SpaceX general. I was specifically trying to compare the Musk vision for Mars colonisation via private wealthy paying passengers with the lack of such behaviour in Antarctica, because that is the case that Elon has made repeatedly as the business case for transporting people to Mars. Maybe I should have hung a few extra mentions of SpaceX around the title/intro...here it looks like I'm saying Mars colonisation can never happen because millionairs don't want to play golf there, which is not my meaning at all! :)

Musk referred to $500k ticket price as a threshold beyond which colonization will take off.

$500k can be your indebtedness for the company that paid your ticket, since you can pay that off in just a few years worth of work.

It is also a reasonable amount for a company to invest in an individual it is sending off to Mars to do work for it, so really, no indebtedness needed.

I actually find this number unnecessarily low.  If Alcoa wants to start producing Aluminum on Mars, it will have to send some equipment and a basic crew.  This investment will include crew transport, equipment development, equipment transport, and crew upkeep.   I think a few million dollars will get lost in that total.

I'd like to see a point where companies can try setting up a presence on Mars for even $1B.  There are plenty of companies that will take that kind of gamble on a new strategic direction.   

There are many companies that make >$1B/quarter, and so can take $1-2B, over 5-10 years, as a trial balloon.

... Not to mention if the price-to-play gets closer to $100M.   I don't see the need for $0.5M ticket price to achieve that.   That number is for stage 2 or 3, where individuals go on a whim, and then it's really not that big a deal to get $500k, part in cash, part in deferred wages for whoever is going to employ you there.

What you're describing sounds a lot like a ponzi scheme.  The colonists don't have to pay their own way because they'll be fronted the money by the companies, and the only ultimate source of income for the companies is from the colonists.  It sounds like a perpetual motion machine where more energy comes out than goes in without there being any source of energy inside.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #36 on: 07/14/2014 07:47 am »
What you're describing sounds a lot like a ponzi scheme.  The colonists don't have to pay their own way because they'll be fronted the money by the companies, and the only ultimate source of income for the companies is from the colonists.  It sounds like a perpetual motion machine where more energy comes out than goes in without there being any source of energy inside.

So, you're saying that every form of wealth creation seems like a ponzi scheme to you..

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #37 on: 07/14/2014 07:52 am »

What you're describing sounds a lot like a ponzi scheme.  The colonists don't have to pay their own way because they'll be fronted the money by the companies, and the only ultimate source of income for the companies is from the colonists.  It sounds like a perpetual motion machine where more energy comes out than goes in without there being any source of energy inside.

Well, the top of the food chain, as discussed in the "funding" thread, is the growth of the Martian economy.  That's the "Ponzi scheme".  In a growing economy, it is not a zero sum game, and you don't need to export in order to survive.   Land value, for example, and stocks in companies that operate on Mars, they get bought with Terrestrial dollars, and the overall pie increases with the size (and perceived future size) of the colony.

The colony had better become self sufficient and run a balanced economy by the time it stops growing, but that's very far in the future, and at that point immigration won't even be the largest source of growth.

I don't think you should count on the colonists money for funding the colony...  That's a one time payment, and it is a recipe for disaster.   You need an economic model, and it must justify the investment in moving people and equipment to Mars.  Lowering the per-person transport cost is just a part of this equation.

EDIT:  It's 1 am, there's a launch at 6 (maybe), I have a to do list that's taller than my monitor, and I'm spending time on this.  I need to pay $500k to move to a place where the round-trip latency is an hour.  The speed of light is a harsh mistress, but I need to be disciplined.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2014 07:55 am by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Alf Fass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • The Abyss
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 83
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #38 on: 07/14/2014 07:54 am »
I still contend that there are no examples on Earth of a large group wealthy private individuals choosing to leave luxury, family and semi-assured longevity behind in favour of a hard, limited life in a harsh environment.

Read "Amana: The Community of True Inspiration" by Bertha H. M Shambaugh. History of rich people who moved from a developed society to the Americas to get away from such dastardly things as compulsory schooling and taxes, formed a colony, then moved again when the railroad brought civilization to their doorstep - a problem they managed to solve for a time in their new location by buying the railroad station. They were sued repeatedly for being too good at building wealth - the general belief at the time being that religious organizations should be charitable - and won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amana_Colonies

Not sure the Amana were the well off choosing to move to a life of hardship and grinding work.
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?
John Maynard Keynes

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Mars vs Antarctica
« Reply #39 on: 07/14/2014 07:58 am »
I still contend that there are no examples on Earth of a large group wealthy private individuals choosing to leave luxury, family and semi-assured longevity behind in favour of a hard, limited life in a harsh environment.

The Crusades in Medieval Europe fit your description.  Many wealthy members of the nobility decided to leave the comfort of their families for a hard, dangerous life far away because it was supposed to be a noble cause.

Large numbers of monks and nuns also fit your description, particularly in Medieval Europe.  In many cases, those born into wealth voluntarily gave it up for the hard, limited life behind walls and isolated from most social contact.

Missionaries in the 18th and 19th Centuries also fit this description.  Many left their comfortable lives to go to remote corners of the world where they lacked the comforts they were used to, just because they through it was a noble cause.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1