I am someone who has wanted to go to Mars for many years now. I first thought about it when I was about 8 years old -- 30 years ago. I'm still enthusiastic about it, although I doubt I'd have the skill sets or youth to participate given the current timeline.
I expect Mars would be too much the opposite of boring. We'd be trying to live in an environment that, as far as we know, doesn't support any life at all. It is extremely hostile. The conditions are more difficult than Antarctica. The planet will be trying to kill you in all kinds of ways, some of which we haven't imagined yet. Early colonists will have their hands full solving one life-threatening issue after another, and without the massive manufacturing and diagnostics and natural resources of Earth at hand.
There is a great deal of science to be done there and that would likely be a major impetus for going and one of the selection criteria for early colonists. Even when the planet isn't trying to kill them, they'd have work to do -- mapping, soil samples, ongoing human health research, materials research, agriculture and biology.
Martian colonists would also not be entirely isolated. There's no reason in principle why you wouldn't be able to email people on Earth on a semi-regular basis, or receive the latest books and movies and games -- to the extent that you'd really have time for any of that.
There are people who are attracted to the idea of living in a smaller community in a completely alien environment. They tend to get dismissed out-of-hand, but it's not really all that unusual. Humans are tribal, there are isolated research facilities in remote parts of the world, even a cramped little space station now.
I seriously doubt it will turn out to be pointless. Colonization has usually moved the larger human society forward a little, with new forms of governance, new materials, new technologies or techniques for daily life. We have no way of knowing now what kind of returns we'd get back from a long-term Martian colony, but I don't think the answer is "none".
> Colonization has usually moved the larger human society forward a little, with new forms of governance, new materials, new technologies or techniques for daily life.
I would really like to see the historical data that bears out this broad claim. I'd like to see a more or less representative sample of "colonization" events that "moved society forward," for example. Also, I'd like to see an accounting of the counterfactuals regarding progress that wouldn't have happened. To cite one example, the "new [if that can be alleged] form of governance" that resulted (if that much can be alleged) in the U.S. from the colonization of the New World took a quarter of a millennium. How much longer for the cotton gin?
Ironically, it's been 50 years since we landed on the Moon, and we can't even rid ourselves of the Space Race / World Of Tomorrow propaganda that drives the public's impression of space exploration. I think we need to look elsewhere than colonization to explain progress.
(Where was colonialism in the discovery of integral calculus? In chaos theory? In...? I'll stop.)
Quite off-topic, but sometimes I even wonder if we should not "de-colonize" Earth. I first thought of that when I learnt that if all human population was living in one place with the same population density as in Tokyo, this megacity would fit in the state of California or something.
That sounds extreme, but I somehow am attracted by the idea of leaving entire continents completely void of humans.
E.O. Wilson has proposed setting aside half the earth for nature. That would be achievable by protecting existing wilderness areas and connecting them together into corridors.
well realistically you only need to get the governments of the UN to agree which is a little less daunting. I can easily imaging taking the Sahara, Siberia, the interior of Australia, and the steppe would get us a good chunk of the way there. Adding on the amazon might be possible with effort.
Of course, these areas have substantial mineral/oil deposits that make the current political situtation difficult. But it's not outside of the realms of possibility that this may eventually stop being the case, such as how Britain's one ubiquitous coal mines are all closed now.
The thought experiment usually goes that the world's population could all fit into the state of Texas, at New York City density.
That always ignores the space required for agriculture, roads and transportation, waste management, power, manufacturing, and of course the natural resources that modern society depends on.
Also, I'd risk arrest or worse just to get out of that area and get some damn peace and quiet. I just spent a week in Chicago. It was fantastic. I'm really glad I'm not still there.
(And no, we shouldn't de-colonize Earth, we should get better at living in it.)
I don't have any other citations or references at hand, sorry.
But, you're attempting to rebut me using a rather deeply-nested stack of science and technology developed in some former colonies.
You might also give my earlier comment a more careful reading. I didn't imply that progress is limited to colonization, only that it contributes to it.
There are people who are attracted to the idea of living in a smaller community in a completely alien environment.
Stated like this, I have more empathy for such a community of Mars settlers if viewed as a lark and a kind of "oddball" enterprise, rather than what Mars colonists seem to be portrayed as now which is "SAVIORS OF HUMANITY."
The idea of having a human colony on Mars is absurd to me, and the idea that we should spend 100s of Billions on it is frustrating. However it would be interesting to see what a rag-tag group of one way explorers could do for a few $100M.
I expect Mars would be too much the opposite of boring. We'd be trying to live in an environment that, as far as we know, doesn't support any life at all. It is extremely hostile. The conditions are more difficult than Antarctica. The planet will be trying to kill you in all kinds of ways, some of which we haven't imagined yet. Early colonists will have their hands full solving one life-threatening issue after another, and without the massive manufacturing and diagnostics and natural resources of Earth at hand.
There is a great deal of science to be done there and that would likely be a major impetus for going and one of the selection criteria for early colonists. Even when the planet isn't trying to kill them, they'd have work to do -- mapping, soil samples, ongoing human health research, materials research, agriculture and biology.
Martian colonists would also not be entirely isolated. There's no reason in principle why you wouldn't be able to email people on Earth on a semi-regular basis, or receive the latest books and movies and games -- to the extent that you'd really have time for any of that.
There are people who are attracted to the idea of living in a smaller community in a completely alien environment. They tend to get dismissed out-of-hand, but it's not really all that unusual. Humans are tribal, there are isolated research facilities in remote parts of the world, even a cramped little space station now.
I seriously doubt it will turn out to be pointless. Colonization has usually moved the larger human society forward a little, with new forms of governance, new materials, new technologies or techniques for daily life. We have no way of knowing now what kind of returns we'd get back from a long-term Martian colony, but I don't think the answer is "none".