Spike Jones wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > Any company that can demonstrate the infrastructure to reach to Mars,
> > when even large governments can not, would likely be able to set its
> > ...
> > the governments of Earth couldn't be bothered to go there, the weapons
> > we've built there are for our use only, to shoot down any
> > competitors...or maybe I'm being too pessimistic here.
>
> I scanned your post thrice and found nothing the least bit pessimistic
> anywhere. The analysis is right on, in fact if anything you understated
> your case Adrian.
Pessimism: that such measures may be needed to colonize Mars.
Optimism: that it is likely that someone with morals and values like us
would be the one to do so, and thus at least significantly influence
whatever government-equivalent system arises when the Martian human
population rises to a large enough level to want one.
> As far as I can see, the first person who gets to Mars to stay
> owns Mars, all of it. Or at least as far as her gun can fire. Like
> it or hate it, Mars will eventually be converted entirely into
> private property, immune from hassle from the blue planet. spike
It will take a while to build some guns once up there. Hopefully, any
such operation will be small enough not to attract government meddling
until the guns are in place, but there may be competing commercial
colonies up there. It would be in their mutual interest not to fire at
each other (very much like Prisoner's Dillema), but only one of them
needs to fear Earth government or desire Martian independence enough to
shoot when and if the army comes to seize control.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:37 MDT