Book: A City on Mars by Kelly & Zach Weinersmith

[lamontagne]

I don't think there will be Thorium mines on Mars, or anything involving children's work 
I think you make the point quite well that for resource mining there is no interest in families.  Ideally, no humans at all.
You don't need to use humans for labor work, it's the most absurd waste of their potential.  A human can output at best a few

I think you're missing my point, so let me restate it: at least for a long period of time, anybody who goes to a space settlement is going to have to work, they are going to have to produce. That doesn't necessarily mean digging iron ore. They can be doctors, technicians, robot operators, farmers (or hydroponics technicians, if you prefer), spacesuit cleaners, or other useful professions. But there's not going to be much ability to support people who consume scarce resources and don't actually produce anything. That's what will make children hard to incorporate into such a settlement. That also goes back to my earlier comment about what happens with people who break the law. There's going to be a pretty harsh punishment system where anybody who is deemed dangerous may be executed, because keeping them in jail uses up too many resources.

Well yes, but who are they producing for?  Why are they working?  What are they building?  Most people on Earth these days produce services.  Are they all uselss freeloaders?  Are only 'producers' real people?  I'm exagerating of course, but I think that the transfer from frontier to suburbia will be the quickest one in history!

People who break the law will be given sentences and restraints, and allowed to work or be sent back to Earth. The cost of someone in prison is actually fairly trivial compared to many things.  Since there will be few products sent down to Earth, the vehicles going up will return fairly empty.  So putting prisoneers on these vehicles, or bored people that don't like space or simple returnees, and sending them back to Earth will be the simplest solution.
What can I say, I'm an optimist 

[sdsds]

This assumes most resources consumed in a settlement are produced at the settlement.

Did you read beyond that sentence you quoted?

Apologies for the quote trimming. We agree that settlers will be providing both goods and services.

[lamontagne]

This assumes most resources consumed in a settlement are produced at the settlement.

Did you read beyond that sentence you quoted? It doesn't look like you did. I mentioned a whole bunch of things people could do, like be doctors, technicians, etc. But what they won't be able to do is sit around doing nothing.

I think there will be a number of retirees.  Probably fairly active retirees, but still.
I aboslutely agree that there will be places that don't have populations, only workers.   But these are not viable settlements, just work sites.  I'm angling towards real settlements, with kids and old people and life.  A City on Mars (or in space) needs to be a city, i.e. a population center with hundreds or square kilometers of food production around it, interesting sees to see.  Ideally with a real high standard of living that doesn't harm the Earth.

[sdsds]

I think there will be a number of retirees.

Eventually that seems inevitable. Unless — as in Soylent Green — aging settlers all decide to "return to the home of God." I suppose that decision could also be made by (or for) settlers who experience injuries or other medical conditions which make them no longer able to contribute to the settlement.

[Blackstar]

I think there will be a number of retirees.

Eventually that seems inevitable. Unless — as in Soylent Green — aging settlers all decide to "return to the home of God." I suppose that decision could also be made by (or for) settlers who experience injuries or other medical conditions which make them no longer able to contribute to the settlement.

My days of not taking you guys seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

[thespacecow]

This a great example of how the silicon valley tech bro mindset takes over these types of things and doesn't consider all of the other human aspects like psychology, social issues, etc. They believe that technology will be the solution for basically everything. Extremely flawed logic.

No, it's not flawed logic at all, technology has been and will be solving basically every problem in society, that's a fact. For example renewable energy tech (and probably geo-engineering) is what will solve climate change, not stupid protests or "ending capitalism".

And dunking those who's actually solving problems in society using technology as "tech bro" is just stupid, without the "tech bros" you wouldn't even be speaking here.

[Eric Hedman]

Review by Robert Zubrin:

https://quillette.com/2023/12/04/why-we-should-go-to-mars/

No surprise, he’s not a fan!

He's not a fan because he has a logical brain.  The authors of the book do not.

For me, settling Mars has never been a question of if.  It has always been a question of when and how provided we don't destroy ourselves first.

[Star One]

Peter Hague's the critic of the book, part two: https://planetocracy.substack.com/p/review-of-a-city-on-mars-part-ii

It's increasing clear to me that this recent surge of anti-space settlement literature is nothing but a symptom of EDS.

If you mean so-called "Elon Derangement Syndrome" (EDS), then you are absolutely wrong.

The idea of space settlement has been around for a lot longer than the period of time since SpaceX (i.e. Elon Musk) actually started looking like it might be able to somehow play a part in future space settlement.

However remember that SpaceX itself has only ever been pitched as a low-cost transportation entity to ENABLE space settlements (starting with Mars), so opinions about whether space settlements can succeed are completely separate from the ability to move people and cargo to space settlements.

For instance, we have had the ability to move people and cargo to locations under water here on Earth for decades, but despite predictions that we would have cities under the oceans, it hasn't happened.

Personally I WANT space settlement to happen, and I WANT humans to expand out into space. And I am always looking for facts, information and opinion that can help make that happen.

Apparently this book may not be a source of facts or information to make help that happen, but that doesn't mean I won't stop doing what I can to support future space settlement.

My $0.02

You missed his point I think. Of course the idea of space settlement has far preceded Musk. But the current flowering of anti-space-settlement literature (articles and books) is a direct response to billionaires like Musk popularizing it and, to some degree, making it more realistic by founding space launch and technology companies.

It’s reactionary. And I think this is correct, at least to some degree. A lot of people who would’ve been “rah, rah, send humans to Mars, that’s so cool” are down on the idea because it’s not NASA leading it as much but instead people they don’t like.

It’s a really stupid trend, and people who do this sort of reactionary thing have lost a lot of my respect (it shows how much their thought and logic process is influenced by political fads and peer pressure). But Musk doesn’t really do space settlement any favors by engaging in politically charged culture war stuff, either.

I’d add that should people really be looking to and noting the opinions of really rich and famous people whoever they might be. But also that such people have a responsibility to think first before putting it out to the whole wide world.

[Star One]

"Elon Derangement Syndrome"

Okay, but - unfortunately - it works both way. It has a mirror, reverse syndrome. "Elon can't be wrong, he is a visionary, blah blah blah".
The proverbial mote & beam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam

Funny how the fhanbioys imagined EDS and  ignored their own EDS : working the opposite way.

It seems with some if the person saying something is rich and famous then their critical facilities seem to shut down.

[Oersted]

Here you go, the complete opposite:

https://www.amazon.com/New-World-Mars-Create-Planet/dp/1635768802?keywords=The+New+World+on+Mars&qid=1705190459&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl1&tag=collectspace&linkId=1e5980c32323a5c53362bae5dacc8444&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl

Blackstar, could you post this as a stand-alone thread? I think it definitely deserves it. I like his books. Uneven quality throughout them, but always interesting and thought-provoking.

[lamontagne]

I think there will be a number of retirees.

Eventually that seems inevitable. Unless — as in Soylent Green — aging settlers all decide to "return to the home of God." I suppose that decision could also be made by (or for) settlers who experience injuries or other medical conditions which make them no longer able to contribute to the settlement.

The food content of a human is over rated    Just general plant production produces huge amounts of non edible biomass.  To humans.  This biomass can be converted by chickens or fish into much less morally difficult to eat chicken and fillets, by many orders of magnitude.  So there is no real gain in eating or composting humans.  It might be a ritual, but the effects would be more symbolic than real.

[Blackstar]

Here you go, the complete opposite:

https://www.amazon.com/New-World-Mars-Create-Planet/dp/1635768802?keywords=The+New+World+on+Mars&qid=1705190459&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl1&tag=collectspace&linkId=1e5980c32323a5c53362bae5dacc8444&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl

Blackstar, could you post this as a stand-alone thread? I think it definitely deserves it. I like his books. Uneven quality throughout them, but always interesting and thought-provoking.

The book is not available yet. When it becomes available, that would be a good time to create a separate thread.

[lamontagne]

Review by Robert Zubrin:

https://quillette.com/2023/12/04/why-we-should-go-to-mars/

No surprise, he’s not a fan!

He's not a fan because he has a logical brain.  The authors of the book do not.

For me, settling Mars has never been a question of if.  It has always been a question of when and how provided we don't destroy ourselves first.

He's not a fan and he gets different results because he is working from different premises.  There is no point in attacking this book on the quality of the people writing it, this never gets anywhere.  It's more valuable to question the quality of the arguments. 
And this book will sell many more copies than Robert's excellent ones, partly because of the semi informal tone.  This could also be used to more effect by advocates, rather than the 'they're not logical' false argument.  A lot of the book is factually correct.

[Eric Hedman]

Review by Robert Zubrin:

https://quillette.com/2023/12/04/why-we-should-go-to-mars/

No surprise, he’s not a fan!

He's not a fan because he has a logical brain.  The authors of the book do not.

For me, settling Mars has never been a question of if.  It has always been a question of when and how provided we don't destroy ourselves first.

He's not a fan and he gets different results because he is working from different premises.  There is no point in attacking this book on the quality of the people writing it, this never gets anywhere.  It's more valuable to question the quality of the arguments. 
And this book will sell many more copies than Robert's excellent ones, partly because of the semi informal tone.  This could also be used to more effect by advocates, rather than the 'they're not logical' false argument.  A lot of the book is factually correct.

Illogical conclusions can still be made from from factually correct elements.  Assuming problems stated can't be resolved is to ignore the history of human innovation.

[lamontagne]

Review by Robert Zubrin:

https://quillette.com/2023/12/04/why-we-should-go-to-mars/

No surprise, he’s not a fan!

He's not a fan because he has a logical brain.  The authors of the book do not.

For me, settling Mars has never been a question of if.  It has always been a question of when and how provided we don't destroy ourselves first.

He's not a fan and he gets different results because he is working from different premises.  There is no point in attacking this book on the quality of the people writing it, this never gets anywhere.  It's more valuable to question the quality of the arguments. 
And this book will sell many more copies than Robert's excellent ones, partly because of the semi informal tone.  This could also be used to more effect by advocates, rather than the 'they're not logical' false argument.  A lot of the book is factually correct.

Illogical conclusions can still be made from from factually correct elements.  Assuming problems stated can't be resolved is to ignore the history of human innovation.

Of course!  But having read the book, they actually conclude that Space settlement is possible and a worthy goal.  They are just kind of bummed that the space community has done a such a poor job of presenting the goal, and in setting unreasonable expectations and proposing a number of less than convincing arguments.
The literally call for a mobilization to better explain the goal, because they tried, and they failed to find the right knowledge. 

[Emmettvonbrown]

Review by Robert Zubrin:

https://quillette.com/2023/12/04/why-we-should-go-to-mars/

No surprise, he’s not a fan!

He's not a fan because he has a logical brain.  The authors of the book do not.

For me, settling Mars has never been a question of if.  It has always been a question of when and how provided we don't destroy ourselves first.

He's not a fan and he gets different results because he is working from different premises.  There is no point in attacking this book on the quality of the people writing it, this never gets anywhere.  It's more valuable to question the quality of the arguments. 
And this book will sell many more copies than Robert's excellent ones, partly because of the semi informal tone.  This could also be used to more effect by advocates, rather than the 'they're not logical' false argument.  A lot of the book is factually correct.

Illogical conclusions can still be made from from factually correct elements.  Assuming problems stated can't be resolved is to ignore the history of human innovation.

Obtuse (and arrogant, also circular) reasoning(s) really doesn't help either.

There are many answers in this thread that are at the "cry baby" level. Booo-hooo, here is a book that dare cast doubt on the viability of Mars colonization. Shock, burn the heretics, BURN THEM !

  There is no point in attacking this book on the quality of the people writing it, this never gets anywhere.  It's more valuable to question the quality of the arguments.

This. A hundred percent.

[sdsds]

I think there will be a number of retirees.

Eventually that seems inevitable. Unless — as in Soylent Green — aging settlers all decide to "return to the home of God." I suppose that decision could also be made by (or for) settlers who experience injuries or other medical conditions which make them no longer able to contribute to the settlement.

The food content of a human is over rated    Just general plant production produces huge amounts of non edible biomass.  To humans.  This biomass can be converted by chickens or fish into much less morally difficult to eat chicken and fillets, by many orders of magnitude.  So there is no real gain in eating or composting humans.  It might be a ritual, but the effects would be more symbolic than real.

Yes, clearly the Soylent Green comment should have included a winky-face emoticon. The deeper point about what happens to settlers whose medical condition prevents them from contributing directly to production of the goods and services needed at the settlement is still open. Some likely feel they should be returned to Earth for care. Perhaps some even feel every early settlement inhabitant should rotate through a tour of duty and then return to Earth.

On a side note, the non-edible biomass presents ethical issues for vegans! Can it also be fed to worms or something and thus provide additional enriched soil for expanded agriculture?

[lamontagne]

I think there will be a number of retirees.

Eventually that seems inevitable. Unless — as in Soylent Green — aging settlers all decide to "return to the home of God." I suppose that decision could also be made by (or for) settlers who experience injuries or other medical conditions which make them no longer able to contribute to the settlement.

The food content of a human is over rated    Just general plant production produces huge amounts of non edible biomass.  To humans.  This biomass can be converted by chickens or fish into much less morally difficult to eat chicken and fillets, by many orders of magnitude.  So there is no real gain in eating or composting humans.  It might be a ritual, but the effects would be more symbolic than real.

Yes, clearly the Soylent Green comment should have included a winky-face emoticon. The deeper point about what happens to settlers whose medical condition prevents them from contributing directly to production of the goods and services needed at the settlement is still open. Some likely feel they should be returned to Earth for care. Perhaps some even feel every early settlement inhabitant should rotate through a tour of duty and then return to Earth.

On a side note, the non-edible biomass presents ethical issues for vegans! Can it also be fed to worms or something and thus provide additional enriched soil for expanded agriculture?

It's a good point.  I expect this will change with time as the settlement grows and adds services.  As often, the question will be what might be the most dangerous, limited local health care or the transportation back home itself.  Having non productive people is not such a large burden, except perhaps for a tiny base.
Edible biomass is super versatile.  Most of it will go to compost to grow more soil, some will be used to create goods, so yes, worms and bacteria.  Mars should be Vegan friendly, as it's a less energy intense way of producing food.

[Blackstar]

Yes, clearly the Soylent Green comment should have included a winky-face emoticon. The deeper point about what happens to settlers whose medical condition prevents them from contributing directly to production of the goods and services needed at the settlement is still open. Some likely feel they should be returned to Earth for care. Perhaps some even feel every early settlement inhabitant should rotate through a tour of duty and then return to Earth.

On a side note, the non-edible biomass presents ethical issues for vegans! Can it also be fed to worms or something and thus provide additional enriched soil for expanded agriculture?

You guys have given me the seeds of a great story: Elon Musk sets up a colony on Mars to serve as a retirement community (a great idea suggested in this very thread!). Starships fly to Mars filled with rich retirees, who think that they're going to live out their golden years on Mars.

Except... when they arrive, they are immediately turned into food for the real settlers.

I'm copyrighting this story.

[lamontagne]

Yes, clearly the Soylent Green comment should have included a winky-face emoticon. The deeper point about what happens to settlers whose medical condition prevents them from contributing directly to production of the goods and services needed at the settlement is still open. Some likely feel they should be returned to Earth for care. Perhaps some even feel every early settlement inhabitant should rotate through a tour of duty and then return to Earth.

On a side note, the non-edible biomass presents ethical issues for vegans! Can it also be fed to worms or something and thus provide additional enriched soil for expanded agriculture?

You guys have given me the seeds of a great story: Elon Musk sets up a colony on Mars to serve as a retirement community (a great idea suggested in this very thread!). Starships fly to Mars filled with rich retirees, who think that they're going to live out their golden years on Mars.

Except... when they arrive, they are immediately turned into food for the real settlers.

I'm copyrighting this story.

Ok SDSDS, quick, make a copy of this thread.  If Blackstar ever writes his story and sells it as a movie for 1 000 000 $. we can sue the pants off him for prior art