So not like the Vikings in Ukraine, who disappeared as problems in the home country interrupted the constant supplies they needed to eke out an existence there (and paid for with furs and ivory), or Roanoke, or the many, many colonies and ghost towns that failed, even though the bar to clear for economic selfreliance was a lot lower.
To me, political independence means that the colony is governed autonomously and the mother country has no effective means to enforce any control.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 08/23/2022 03:16 pmTo me, political independence means that the colony is governed autonomously and the mother country has no effective means to enforce any control. This is the common meaning of the term "political independence" in this context. As to the relatively small number of moonizens [Lunizens?] involved, even after the forty to fifty year time frame of "colonization", the new "country" would still be relatively expensive to visit. Over that time frame, political differences between the mother countries and the colony would develop.
Quote from: high road on 08/24/2022 08:22 amSo not like the Vikings in Ukraine, who disappeared as problems in the home country interrupted the constant supplies they needed to eke out an existence there (and paid for with furs and ivory), or Roanoke, or the many, many colonies and ghost towns that failed, even though the bar to clear for economic selfreliance was a lot lower.Yep, many, many colonies failed."Vikings in Ukraine": Were you referring to the Kievan Rus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27Those Vikings dominated Eastern Europe and were eventually assimilated into the elite, and that wasn't a colony, it was more like an invasion. Their hegemony eventually morphed into the countries of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. I was referring to the Greenland Norse which was a colony that lasted for 450 years, which is longer than the the USA has existed and longer than the Roman occupation of Britannia. The Greenland Norse were driven out by climate change and the superior technology of the Inuit who arrived later, not by lack of support from the homeland, of which they were independent. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_SucceedWhich is a really good book and has many other relevant examples for a discussion of independence of colonies.No, history does not repeat, and newer technologies will result in major differences in detail, but attempting to control a distant colony by coercion will eventually fail.
I should have added that I don't think it's a colony until at least half the population were born there or intend to reside there permanently. Before that, It's an outpost or a research station...
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 08/24/2022 03:34 pmI should have added that I don't think it's a colony until at least half the population were born there or intend to reside there permanently. Before that, It's an outpost or a research station...In my original speculation, I feared that terrestrial governments, with good reason, would be hesitant to welcome a new off-world country. Because competition. In the last couple of years, I realized that the real devil in the details is terrestrial life thriving in other than one-gee environments. The colony would have to have a vote, in an ideal situation, on whether they wanted independence. But yeah. Babies would have to be involved.Which opens up a new [to this thread] subject about whether Moonies could ever come back to one gee, what with muscle atrophy and all. But someone else can start that thread.Moving back to the topic, if several nations, US, China, Russia, and India all have colonies of various sizes up there, what then?
I don’t think that past colonial experience on Earth provides much of a guide to any future Lunar or Martian colony despite the apparent similarities.
Quote from: Slarty1080 on 09/03/2022 08:21 amI don’t think that past colonial experience on Earth provides much of a guide to any future Lunar or Martian colony despite the apparent similarities.You're so right, except for the existence of similarities. I don't think that there are any at all. Earth colonies had air, food, water ...
... and could be settled using neolithic rock-banging technologies.
The transportation was low tech - built of trees and plants and found rocks.
Many of the sites were inhabited by indigenous people who could provide assistance and trade right until they were enslaved and exploited.
There were materials that were highly desired in the home countries that could routinely be sold for a great profit above the cost of colonial production and transportation. Absolutely none of that applies to any possible off-world colony today. All this discussion of off-world colonies has been shaped by sci-fi writers with superficial training in history and science.