Country most likely

[vegascat]

What country or group of countries do you think will be most likely to first settle other planets, and why?

Japan has the population pressure, and shortage of resources serious enough to compel them to attemp it.

If India can keep Pakistan from declaring war, they are a close runner up, expecially if they combine forces with Great Britain. India is rapidly gaining a technical base whic already has rockets. and atomic tech. Add in population pressure and a need for distance for safety and you have strong reason for them to attemp off planet settlement.

The USA has no strong compelling reason to claim ohter planets other than to stay on top as the sole superpower remaining. The profit to loss reatio is too long range for corps or politicians to try it.

Russia, African or South American countries are not high on the list to settle of planet. Other countries to watch for may be China, or the European Union, if they can get theri act togather.

what are your views on who will start the race to the planets?

 

[WhiteStar]

I'll cast my vote for China

I don't know why but i think i can see them waiting for the right moment to stun the world with a provebial middle finger.

That could of course be what i would like to happen. They also have a problem with over-crowding, maybe worse than Japan.

And they seem so quiet so who knows what exactly they're up too.

 

[TKalbfus]

What country or group of countries do you think will be most likely to first settle other planets, and why?

The United States.
Why? Because it can and also because we're pissed off at the United Nations and our so called allies, i.e. France and Germany who would not support us during the Persian Gulf War II and also in light of their ineffectual contributions to the International Space Station project. It seems the I.S.S. is a U.S. project in all but name. The U.S. and Russia remain the only space powers with a manned space program. The Chinese may attempt to land men on the Moon, or Mars, but that is not settling it. Settling Mars is going to take alot of resources. Certain international obligations have restrained us so far. Such as the International Space Treaty. It seems like much of the World is on a anti-US kick, so if much of the world is against us, why should we care about them? Let the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese "hug and squeeze" the Arabs. We should go to Mars and claim it as a US territory to get even. We can ignore the ABM treaties, and stick an American flag in the red soil of Mars and really mean it this time. International gestures are unappreciated, like the time we sacrificed so many of our men to liberate France, only to have France stab us in the back. If France and Germany can't get to Mars on their own, too bad as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Tom Schoene]

Overcrowding is unlikely to be a real cause for extraterrestrial colonization, because colonization is unlikely to be a real solution to overcrowding. China would have to ship off around 30,000 people every day to hold its own on population growth.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

None of the above.

There is no country currently in existance on Earth with the wherewithal to colonize other worlds, not even Mars or Luna! Plans were made during the late 70's and early 80's, but they're either collecting dust on a forgotten shelf, or providing bulk for some forgotten landfill. Forget the so-called "plans" you read in Pop. Science, Pop. Mechanics, and Scientific American. Forget also anything you've seen on Discovery or the Disney channel. These are only fantansies - something to wrap around a few advertisements and make more money for the sponsors.

A dream without committment is not a plan, it's a fantasy.

Assuming that what is meant by "colony" is an independantly viable one, what's needed for colonization is:
- A massive gene pool at the colony. This means about 10,000 people at once willing to become "baby factories" that pump out one offspring per year for the first eight years, with a maximum variety of mother+father pairs.
- A reliable means of getting them all there.
- Enough food, medicine, and other supplies to sustain those colonists for ten years, or until they set up their infrastructure.
- The willingness of the Motherworld to "let go" of the colony once they are no longer dependent on the folks back home.

Now, if what is meant by "colony" is actually a homeworld-dependent research station, then all that's needed is a few dozen to a few hundred willing volunteers. They would have to understand that they would be totally stranded if anything should happen on Earth that threatens their supply lines.

 

[Tom Schoene]

I think you're overstating the gene pool required. Plenty of viable colonies have started with a few hundred people in basically monogamous relationships. Assuming you can bring in more population later, you don't have to worry about inbreeding for several generations.

Most of the studies I've seen have said ~1000 people is enough even for extrasolar colonies with no subsequent injection of new genetics. Within the solar system, fewer would be fine for the initial colonists. You may need more to ensure a critical base of knowledge and skills, rather than genetic diversity.)

 

[BMonnery]

I think it's a matter of will and requisite technology.

Even Mars is a long way away. With nuclear powered spacecraft with high specific impulses, we can probably get there fast enough that most people can go. Getting up to orbit is the killer, hopefully we can get the cost down to about a million dollars per person.

The 3 nations which might be able to do it given current trends are America (large resource and tech base, inefficently used), Britain (large, efficient tech base, relatively poorly resourced)and China (as US, but inferior tech base). I'd include Russia but they're pretty knocked out right now. On the outside, France has similar technology to China, but not the resources. Japan has the money but not the right tech base, and would probably be the 2nd nation there.

I'd bet US or China, with the UK and Japan on the outside.

Bryn

 

[BMonnery]

OT, but I did a thought experiment for 2300AD which included the costs of a colony under that games system:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/9292/2300/Trade2k3.htm

Bryn

Originally posted by BMonnery:
I think it's a matter of will and requisite technology.

Even Mars is a long way away. With nuclear powered spacecraft with high specific impulses, we can probably get there fast enough that most people can go. Getting up to orbit is the killer, hopefully we can get the cost down to about a million dollars per person.

The 3 nations which might be able to do it given current trends are America (large resource and tech base, inefficently used), Britain (large, efficient tech base, relatively poorly resourced)and China (as US, but inferior tech base). I'd include Russia but they're pretty knocked out right now. On the outside, France has similar technology to China, but not the resources. Japan has the money but not the right tech base, and would probably be the 2nd nation there.

I'd bet US or China, with the UK and Japan on the outside.

Bryn

 

[TKalbfus]

Assuming that what is meant by "colony" is an independantly viable one, what's needed for colonization is:
- A massive gene pool at the colony. This means about 10,000 people at once willing to become "baby factories" that pump out one offspring per year for the first eight years, with a maximum variety of mother+father pairs.

What about in-vitro fertilization, test tube babies, or even human clones?

[QUOTE}- A reliable means of getting them all there. [/QUOTE]

Resurrect Project Orion
Also we're making progress in the mass production of nanotubes that could be used in the construction of a space elevator.

- Enough food, medicine, and other supplies to sustain those colonists for ten years, or until they set up their infrastructure.

Its easier to ship supplies than people. Greenhouses can be setup on Mars to grow food.
{QUOTE}- The willingness of the Motherworld to "let go" of the colony once they are no longer dependent on the folks back home.
[/QUOTE]
That's not a requirement. Interplanetary governments are quite possible. If fact retaining territory settled is one of the chief incentives toward settling Mars. Acquiring territory makes the nation bigger, that's why the space treaty is such an impediment, but since the UN is self-destructing with France's help...

 

[Whipsnade]

"What about in-vitro fertilization, test tube babies, or even human clones?"


Sir,

Okay, however you did it - invitro, womb tanks, clones, etc. - now you have an infant. Who's going to care for it? Who's feed it for the next 14-18 years? Who's going to teach it? Who's going house and shelter it? Who's going to wipe it's nose, wipe it's bum, teach it table manners, toilet train it, and all the rest?

These babies don't spring fully formed and ready to go, like Athena from Zeus' head. After being born, they have to be raised. You can pump out all the babies you want via whatever methods you choose. You still have to raise them though.

Our little fantasies rarely touch upon that point, actual interstellar colony planners will have to tackle it however.

So, you've got a baby. Congratulations, have a cigar. Now, how are you going raise it?


Larsen

 

[ninthcouncil]

Originally posted by Tom Kalbfus:
What about in-vitro fertilization, test tube babies, or even human clones?

Still require people to actually bear the children, so other than assisting with prevention of individual infertility, they have little bearing on the argument. Furthermore, there seem to be a few health problems associated with cloning....

Even if we assumed that the development of "artificial wombs" could obviate the requirement for human mothers, this just shifts the problem into the economic sphere - who's going to feed/look after/school all those artificial babies?

[I'm not going to respond to your comment about France and the UN, except to say it doesn't belong in this discussion. If you want an argument on this point please hold it elsewhere.]

EDIT - echoey in here, isn't it, Larsen?

 

[Whipsnade]

"echoey in here, isn't it, Larsen? "


Sir,

Yes indeed! We must of been typing at the same time!

The evil side of me loves to pull out the 'Raise Them' question whenever the question of colonies come up in Our Olde Game.

During an Interstellar Wars discussion some time ago, one fellow explained away the Terran colonies' hyperactive growth as the mere result of dropping off 10K adults and a million womb tanks onto each prospective world. When I asked him where the million diapers, formula bottles, cribs, playpens, and whatnot were going to come from, he got sort of quiet all of a sudden. D'oh!

Sure, pump all the babies you want. Now, how are you going to raise them?


Larsen

 

[TKalbfus]

Okay, however you did it - invitro, womb tanks, clones, etc. - now you have an infant. Who's going to care for it? Who's feed it for the next 14-18 years? Who's going to teach it? Who's going house and shelter it? Who's going to wipe it's nose, wipe it's bum, teach it table manners, toilet train it, and all the rest?

That solves the problem of genetic diversity, not parenting. Once you solve that problem you don't need an initial population of 10,000 to provide for a sufficient gene pool. You could start with 100 or less. Tens of thousands of stored frozen embrios are keep in a freezer to provide genetic diversity.

[I'm not going to respond to your comment about France and the UN, except to say it doesn't belong in this discussion. If you want an argument on this point please hold it elsewhere.]

I mean't to say that the UN Space Treaty is an impediment, because it does not allow for private ownership of space resources. If one can't claim space material or territoriality, the incentive to colonize space is reduced, it becomes a scientific, non-profit endeavor. The people who put up the money to colonize the planets can forget about any returns under current UN treaties, that's one of the reasons progress into space has been so slow. As for France, Isaac Newton had a saying, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The French turned the Security Council into an attack forum against my country, the United States. I am of course offended by this. I have nothing against France itself, just its behavior. There is a French saying, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Well France wants both. They want good relations with the United States, yet they want to attack it in the UN. I don't know why they are doing this. They want the US to use the UN, yet they are trying to render the UN unusable by putting up road blocks to US policy every step of the way.

 

[Whipsnade]

"That solves the problem of genetic diversity, not parenting. Once you solve that problem you don't need an initial population of 10,000 to provide for a sufficient gene pool. You could start with 100 or less. Tens of thousands of stored frozen embrios are keep in a freezer to provide genetic diversity."


Sir,

I'm in complete agreement with you on how frozen embryos can maintain genetic diversity. Now, after you thaw them out, how are you going to raise them?

How much of you colonial population, what percentage, will be primarily engaged in child care? Will you have creches? Professional foster parents? Insist that every family raise one of yours with one of their own? How are you going to raise them?


Larsen

 

[TKalbfus]

You simply have a traditional nuclear family. One parent does most of the Mission Work while the other raises the children. Initially the first 100 hundred will have their own children. The embyos will remain in storage for the first generation. There will be 50 married couples, each one will have about 3 of their own children. That is 150 children over a ten year span. In 30 years we'll have 150 young adults ranging in age from 20 to 30 years of age and the original 100 settlers ranging in age from 50 to 60 for a total of 250 people. This second generation will also choose their mates natually form the 150 available members of the second generation, there is no inbreeding here unless you choose to marry your sibling. 30 more years pass and 225 additional children are born and raised to adulthood. This third generation ranges in age from 20 to 30, the second generation is from 50 to 60 years old for a total of 375 working age people and there is now a population of 50 to 100 retirees ranging from 80 to 90 years old. At the third generation there begins to be a risk of marrying your cousin. If you choose to marry your cousin your implant a frozen embryo in the female member of each couple, otherwise you have your own children. The Mars colony is now 60 years old! Another 30 years passes, the first generation is gone, 337 new children are born and reach the age range of 20 to 30, the 225 before that is now 50 to 60 years old and you now have 75 to 150 retirees from 80 to 90 years old. The total population of the colony after 90 years is from 637 to 712. After 90 years its hard to believe that their won't be new immigrants from Earth. Were talking the year 2100 AD at least!

 

[Whipsnade]

"You simply have a traditional nuclear family. One parent does most of the Mission Work while the other raises the children."


Mr. Kalbfus,

Okay, that might work. Sending half your population off to Mars just to be nannies for the first thirty years might make it hard to recruit bodies though. Can Mr. or Mrs. Mom do a little work outside of the home or shall we only recruit the heirs of June Cleaver and Carol Brady?

"Initially the first 100 hundred will have their own children."

Great, 50 men and 50 women, carefully selected, pair bonded in advance, and contracted to produce 3 children within 10 years. And it will all work like clockwork. Right. Care to guess what the current divorce rate after only 7 years is? Care to guess what the psycological pressures of being 1 of only 100 people on Mars will be like?

(snip of further "assembly line" style procreation efforts and blue-sky societal assumptions; all colonists are heterosexual, no murders or accients, everyone happy with their limited choice of mates, etc.)

"The total population of the colony after 90 years is from 637 to 712. After 90 years its hard to believe that their won't be new immigrants from Earth. Were talking the year 2100 AD at least!"

Wow. Nearly 800 people in 90 years not counting the almost totally unused 10,000 frozen embryos or any further immigration. And of course everyone on Mars fits the colony's master procreational blueprint perfectly, happily goosestepping along producing 3 children within 10 years in each marriage, never divorcing, and always happy with their limited choice of mates.

I guess we'll shipping them a lot of rose colored glasses from Earth too.


Larsen

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Wow, this got snarky real fast!

My opinion is that the richest country - or perhaps just the richest people - will get there first. Population pressure will likely not be the driving factor in the sense of "we need more space" but rather in the sense of "get me away from all of these poor people".

 

[Whipsnade]

"Wow, this got snarky real fast!"


Sir,

You are, of course, correct. It did get snarky fast and it seems I haven't yet regained my ability to act in civil manner.

My apologies to Mr. Kalbfus. Getting snide over make-believe planetary colonization plans proves I need to watch myself more carefully.

"My opinion is that the richest country - or perhaps just the richest people - will get there first. Population pressure will likely not be the driving factor in the sense of "we need more space" but rather in the sense of "get me away from all of these poor people"."

An intriguing observation. William Gibson presents a similar idea in one of his earlier books. Most of the orbital habitats around Earth are either 'fortresses of solitude' for the obscenely wealthy or resorts for the merely filthy rich. A few other cultures fill in the cracks; IIRC there are rastafarian squatters in one abandoned facility.


Larsen

 

[TKalbfus]

There are some parallels with the Jamestown Colony of Virginia in that Gentlement will not be needed. My original projection of 600 to 700 people in the first 90 years assumes no additional immigrants in the first 90 years. I do not think this is realistic however. This colony will need spare parts and other help from Earth for a long time to come. Along with this will come additional immigrants. You can expect a minimum of about 24 newcomers every 2 years at least in the first few years using conventional rocket technology. Over time better Earth to orbit launch systems will be developed. Clean fusion pulse reactors will enable direct launch from Earth's surface to orbit along the lines of the proposed Orion atomic spaceships, except without the dirty radioactive material in the exhaust. Massive amounts of materials will be lifted into orbit and a space elevator will be constructed producing even cheaper Earth to orbit service. Once in orbit, low thrust/high specific impulse rockets become available including those of fusion rockets. It should be possible at this point to reach Mars in 1 month. I believe all this will happen in the next 90 years, it certainly is more interesting than the extended 20th century some people are predicting.

 

[Jame]

Now, America is one of the richest countries, but we're no longer one of the richest peoples. Just look at reality tv and SUVs.

Of course, the above is representative of social stagnation, and is why we need to get off this planet.