"Colonizing" Mars or any other place won't provide the "incentive" to become a "space-faring" civilization, it doesn't work that way. The "incentive" to become a "space-faring" civilization and the willingness to build up and expand the infrastructure to do THAT is what leads to colonization. The "dead-end" that Zubrin advocates (and I'm very much afraid that Musk has drunk that "kool-aid") is becoming a "multi-planet" species without ever becoming a "space-fairing" civilization. By concentrating on a single "goal" and pushing everything in that particular direction you end up creating a specialized system that "works" well enough for ONLY that particular goal.
The legal status of Antarctica keeps it from having much influence on the global economy. Any change in status would be strongly resisted. dependent Mars was a policy goal that was good for the terrestrial economy...it could happen very fast.
Quote from: Ludus on 05/23/2014 11:59 pmThe legal status of Antarctica keeps it from having much influence on the global economy. Any change in status would be strongly resisted. dependent Mars was a policy goal that was good for the terrestrial economy...it could happen very fast.No. The legal status of Mars is very much a second or third order influence on its potential for economic influence. The horrific environment and difficulty of access are much more important and place settlement and economic influence out of the question for the foreseeable future.
Would you agree that the Apollo program had a significant economic influence on the US in the 1960's ?
That was motivated to a significant extent by the open legal question about whether being the first to land on the moon would create a valid claim of sovereignty.
Whether all the potential future value of the moon was at stake. Once it became clear that wasn't an issue everybody lost interest.
The quest for wealth motivates economic action.
Quote from: Jim Davis on 05/23/2014 11:04 pmQuote from: Ludus on 05/23/2014 07:22 pmThe social/economic component to Mars settlement that's not there with O'Neill is that even a small group of people who are permanent residents of Mars might plausibly create demand for space travel that resists political winds. This is much less true of "stations" or "colonies" than Martians who are sovereign and independent regardless of their numbers and this isn't important to Zubrin.It will be centuries if not millennia before any "Martians" will be able to give earth the figurative middle finger.Based on historical analogy, we tend to assume that political independence is something that happens despite the best efforts of founding groups to prevent it. That's based on the assumptions by founders that their best hope of profits came from maximal control. I don't think this has to be true. A modern analogy is Antarctica which has a similar legal status to what Mars would have by default under current international law. No one settling there would have any hope of property rights or political independence. There would be no framework for investment. The legal status of Antarctica keeps it from having much influence on the global economy. Any change in status would be strongly resisted. If we wanted to maximize the economic growth and wealth creation of Antarctica (which may not be desirable in the same sense as it might for Mars) I suggest working to make it a Sovereign state would make a huge difference. I don't think Mars settlers would be able to fight for independence against resistance for a very long time. If however, there was a consensus that an independent Mars was a policy goal that was good for the terrestrial economy...it could happen very fast.
Quote from: Ludus on 05/23/2014 07:22 pmThe social/economic component to Mars settlement that's not there with O'Neill is that even a small group of people who are permanent residents of Mars might plausibly create demand for space travel that resists political winds. This is much less true of "stations" or "colonies" than Martians who are sovereign and independent regardless of their numbers and this isn't important to Zubrin.It will be centuries if not millennia before any "Martians" will be able to give earth the figurative middle finger.
The social/economic component to Mars settlement that's not there with O'Neill is that even a small group of people who are permanent residents of Mars might plausibly create demand for space travel that resists political winds. This is much less true of "stations" or "colonies" than Martians who are sovereign and independent regardless of their numbers and this isn't important to Zubrin.
They are able to pass treaties protecting Antarctica, The Moon and Outer Space easily because no one thought they were of economic importance.
Quote from: Darkseraph on 05/25/2014 08:09 amThey are able to pass treaties protecting Antarctica, The Moon and Outer Space easily because no one thought they were of economic importance.Exactly the opposite. Those treaties were signed to avoid wars over those unclaimed territories.