As we mourn the loss of a pioneer, it’s important to note that it lies with the billionaires, not NASA or other government programs:
“One [path] is that we stay on Earth forever and then there will be an inevitable extinction event,” [Bezos] told the audience of scientists and engineers. “The alternative is to become a spacefaring civilization, and a multi-planetary species.”
Ashlee Vance, longtime tech journalist and author of Elon Musk: Tesla, Space, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future, thinks these ambitions are driven by a mix of entrepreneurial curiosity, altruism and a dash of egotism. “The guys who are rulers of the universe now are the nerds,” he says. “They were all geeks raised on science fiction and the vision of space we had in the 1960s and 70s. Now they have the money to make this a reality.”
Yes.
No.
We seem to have figured out that govt. isn’t going to colonize space. That’s step one in the right direction. Next is to realize that Bezos and Musk aren’t going to do it either.
All of them can help or hinder, but it is mindset of the people that will make the difference and I give you ancient China as an example. They turned inward and left the rest of the world to the Europeans. Even then, it was the colonists, not their patrons, that made it possible. For any group of colonists it only takes one patron and that patron doesn’t have to be anybody specific. That patron just needs to be anyone that enables the colonists. The colonists, many of whom will die and are often ignored are the one’s that make it happen. But not being a rich patron they get ignored for the most part. We remember the leaders but not the crew or the taxpayers.
The only thing that prevents planetary colonization is mindset. We can’t let the little guy win. At this very moment their exists both those willing to risk their lives and those willing to risk a bit of their paycheck if they get the least scrap from the table in return.
The only thing that prevents planetary colonization is mindset.
The absence of planetary colonists suggests something more than mindset is the problem.
Yes and no. There are obviously technological and cost barriers, especially for individuals. But the government has never had a colonization mindset.
When Americans go to space, we will take our government with us but when our government goes to space, it doesn’t take Americans with it. I hope the latter changes. Seeding space requires a societal scale of effort.
The absence of planetary colonists suggests something more than mindset is the problem.
What would that be? It’s not technical because many solutions are possible. It’s not lack of colonists because 1000s are ready to go right now. It’s not funding because the money to do it exists in abundance. It’s totally mindset because the money exist in the pockets of millions of people that just want a piece of the action but their ‘betters’ are marxists (often not knowing they are) that force everyone to believe the facts of history no longer apply and we all belong to the state.
American exceptionalism is a dead mindset if we all believe in the supremacy of the state. We could easily finance the expansion into the entire solar system if we just believe in individual ownership instead of collective non ownership.
We have all become nanny state fools. It’s disgusting.
It’s not lack of colonists because 1000s are ready to go right now. It’s not funding because the money to do it exists in abundance.
Refresh my memory, Ken. Which one of those 1000s has the money to do it in abundance? Why hasn’t he done so?
We could easily finance the expansion into the entire solar system if we just believe in individual ownership instead of collective non ownership.
Well, then start financing, Ken. What are you waiting for, the state’s permission?
Yes, state permission is one of the potential mindset problems. If tomorrow the state guaranteed to acknowledge title it would create a market with real value unlike some credit default swaps which have none.
Which one of those 1000s has the money to do it in abundance?
There’s your disconnect. The money supply and the colonists risking there lives are two sets of people with a tiny bit of overlap.
Value is not an objective quantity, but most morons treat it as such. By making that the foundation of their argument they blind themselves to reality. Which is then revealed when someone makes $12m dollars in six months selling pet rocks or $20/acre worthless deeds to the moon.
What would actual title backed by govt. sell for?
$5/hectare pays for a thousand Apollo programs, but would require allowing deplorable people to actually own something so can’t be allowed by marxist mindset.
However even govt. can be forced to accept reality if enough people support ownership by possession (the historical fact.)
You do realize that paper money has no value without the force of state right? The historic reality is that money only has value due to mindset and has lost that value on many occasions in the past. Precious metals and land tend to hold their value despite govt. or bank malfeasance.
Since bank notes are no longer contracts for gold or silver their value is entirely tied to govt. force and the perception of value.
It’s all mindset.
“One [path] is that we stay on Earth forever and then there will be an inevitable extinction event,”
What does this make you imagine? I am guessing quite a few things. But there are many prominent people against humanity leaving its nest who view that statement as being one about global warming. Their response is that we must spend all resources doing what they think will save our planet’s soul.
Another popular one is nuclear war. But with whatever scenario, they view the rich people ruining and then leaving Earth. How can we use persuasion to support colonization of the solar system?
I erred already by using the word colonization but should specific possible events be used rather than just “extinction level events”?
Should persuasion take a route of encouraging participation or just staying out of the way?
Extinction avoidance won’t work unless the extinction event is real and near. Colonization won’t work because just sending a bunch of people one way and hoping they can thrive will not attract enough people or funding.
What will drive our move into space is business. People working for a profit in orbit, L-points, the Moon, Mars, etc., and businesses with a working profit model that non-spacers will invest in because the venture makes money.
I guarantee you more people came to America to achieve a measure of wealth, than did those who came for religious freedoms.
Mars colonist can go for wealth and those funding them can do it for wealth.
Nobody owns mars but it can be sold. Wrapping your mind around that is the solution to colonization.
If the colonist do not have to pay for their own ticket, the higher the cost per mass the more wealth they bring with them.
The colonists don’t have to pay for their own ticket if we auction off the land (to anyone except govt. which is prohibited by OST) which only goes to pay for tickets.
The colonists all arrive wealthy. The title holders have distributed value to hold and trade. The more colonists, the more land value appreciates. The poorest people on earth could afford it. The higher the ticket price (which must include some mass allotment) the wealthier the colonists are when they arrive.
Not doing this is stupid. Waiting to do this is stupid. There is no intelligent life on earth.
You have no counter argument.
If tomorrow the state guaranteed to acknowledge title it would create a market with real value unlike some credit default swaps which have none.
So you need the state to do the heavy lifting for you? And if someone disagrees they’re nanny-staters?
The money supply and the colonists risking there lives are two sets of people with a tiny bit of overlap.
Let me guess – you want the state to take money from one of those groups and give it to the other? In the name of “fairness”, no doubt.
You do realize that paper money has no value without the force of state right?
I’m guessing that that hasn’t stopped you from hanging on to your paper money. It sure doesn’t seem to have stopped you from demanding others’ paper money.
JD, I’m amazed that you got so much wrong in one comment that I must assume it was your intent.
So you need the state to do the heavy lifting for you?
Not what I said. It obviously helps when the state agrees rather than opposes. I was simply stating the obvious. The fact is the advantages of my proposal is you don’t need any state legislature to begin this process. You only need a contract with the colonists that they will defend peoples title purchased by this process.
And if someone disagrees they’re nanny-staters?
Yes. Any question?
Let me guess – you want the state to take money from one of those groups and give it to the other? In the name of “fairness”, no doubt.
Nope. There will be no colonization (or very little) if the colonists must buy their own ticket and there is no need for them to. The assets already exists to pay for those tickets and costs nobody because nobody currently owns it. Land purchased by anybody becomes a valuable trade good.
When land is owned it goes from non productive to productive. Leaving land non productive is stupid and evil because history shows that it costs lives.
I’m guessing that that hasn’t stopped you from hanging on to your paper money.
Non-sequitur. Are you denying that fiat money only has value because the govt. says it does by force or that even with force it has lost all its value many times in the past? You didn’t and you can’t.
It sure doesn’t seem to have stopped you from demanding others’ paper money.
Nowhere in this post have I demanded OPM. Purchasing land at auction distributes the land fairly. Using that money to purchase transportation is the most direct way to use it to benefit those purchasers because it causes that land to appreciate at the fastest rate. Nobody else has a greater claim on that money, especially any government (OST says so.)
JD, I’m amazed that you got so much wrong in one comment that I must assume it was your intent.
The problem, Ken, is that you refuse to be pinned down.
You’re making two claims:
1. Thousands of people want to go to Mars.
2. There are no barriers, financial or otherwise, to prevent them.
But these claims are inconsistent with the observation:
No one lives on Mars, is going to Mars, or is planning to go to Mars.
You’ve tried to explain this inconsistency by claiming it’s due to the “wrong mindset”. I’ve tried to get you to explain exactly what you mean by this but you go off on rants about the state and paper money and claim you’re being deliberately misunderstood.
So, I’ll ask you again, what, and specifically whose, “wrong mindset” is keeping these thousands of would be Martian colonists on Earth and how? Presumably you’re not claiming the would be colonists have the wrong mindset. You’re not suggesting these prospective colonists are suffering from moral decay, reject American exceptionalism, and are a bunch of nanny staters, right? Okay, then who, with what mindset, is holding them back, and how are they doing it? Be specific.
I think it is much more probable that the inconsistency is because one or both your claims are false. But I want to hear your take if you can be bothered to provide it. Who, with what mindset, is holding these folks back, and how are they doing it?
Well formed query Jim. I thank you. However, why would you suggest I can’t be ‘bothered’ to respond. Let me try…
1. Though not conclusive, thousands paid a fee to Mars One for just the chance at a one way trip to mars. I feel I’m on pretty solid ground simply by the fact that 1000s is such a small percent of billions that now live on earth.
2. There is a huge difference between barriers and challenges. I define challenges as something that can be overcome with sufficient effort. We’ve put stuff on mars already. Making that stuff live people is just an incremental difference. So I find it reasonable that the technical challenges aren’t a showstopper.
Financial isn’t really a challenge at all in the same sense. Unlike technical challenges, it doesn’t require us to do anything new. The money already exists. But I’ll get back to that.
Your claim of inconsistancy is both common and false. That something hasn’t been done is no evidence what-so-ever that it can’t be done. On the contrary, all I have to show is that all the elements have been done separately, to conclude that they likely can be which happens to be the case. Don’t expect me to list them because they are extensive and you can do that just as easily for yourself.
So now we come to the central question: what, and specifically whose, “wrong mindset” is keeping these thousands of would be Martian colonists on Earth and how?
The wrong mindset is that ownership by individuals is somehow wrong or not possible. Which should be ridiculous on its face. The mindset that everything in space belongs to humanity (meaning nobody except political elites by regulation… regulation is a form of ownership as Thomas Sowell points out) is commonly held to be true although the case is pretty easily made that, that claim is not just ridiculous but evil. It’s pure nanny statism or fascism.
People follow the lead of others. Nobody is going to buy mars real estate under the current mindset. A mindset that could easily be changed if someone more than just me chose to support it. Or anybody born before the pussified wimps (or is it wussified pimps?) that exist today. I conclude no argument will make my point which however, still remains true.
Ownership is confirmed by chain of title. All chain of title, going back to the beginning of history, starts with a claim by possession. All claims must be defended. The more people making similar claims the more defensible they become.
Whose mindset? Enough people to make things happen. It doesn’t have to be everybody. Just those that could secure those claims.
I really don’t want to belabor the point, but then you might accuse me of not being specific.
Specifically. An auction could sell mars in plots to anyone on earth. With a minimum bid of about a dollar per half acre, over 60,000 colonists tickets could be paid for, but could easily cover the first million colonists if the sales are managed properly and transportation ticket prices start to approach the levels claimed (about 10% of the initial price.)
The legitimacy of that auction would be benefited if supported by law but doesn’t really require that if people are given a reason to have faith in title for other reasons such as a contract with the colonist that they will defend title of those that made their free passage possible.
Ken, thanks for the detailed response. We’re falling off the front page so I’ll make a few comments and retire.
That something hasn’t been done is no evidence what-so-ever that it can’t be done.
Oh, no, Ken, it very much is evidence it can’t be done at a given moment. It’s not conclusive proof but skeptics of Mars colonization don’t shoulder the burden of proof, proponents do.
The wrong mindset is that ownership by individuals is somehow wrong or not possible.
I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion; I doubt that many people have thought of extraterrestrial land ownership at all. But granting it might be the case the only thing that matters is do you need these people or not? If not, who cares what their mindset is? If so, then you are making a huge tactical error of issuing blanket disparagements of these folks. If you do need them why not try to engage with them and see if you can change some views?
But the real problem with your attitude is that it comes off as arrogant and condescending. Who had the proper mindset is something that will be determined in retrospect, it can’t be asserted beforehand. If in 20 years there are thousands of colonists on Mars then clearly I had the wrong mindset. If in a hundred years there have been a half dozen failed settlements then clearly you had the wrong mindset.
People follow the lead of others. Nobody is going to buy mars real estate under the current mindset. A mindset that could easily be changed if someone more than just me chose to support it. Or anybody born before the pussified wimps (or is it wussified pimps?) that exist today. I conclude no argument will make my point which however, still remains true.
I’ve already mentioned arrogance and condescension. Here you are admitting that you’re the only one who thinks there’s any merit in selling Martian real estate. Instead of considering that said plan might have serious flaws you promptly double down and begin name calling.
Specifically. An auction could sell mars in plots to anyone on earth. With a minimum bid of about a dollar per half acre, over 60,000 colonists tickets could be paid for, but could easily cover the first million colonists if the sales are managed properly and transportation ticket prices start to approach the levels claimed (about 10% of the initial price.)
This is usually the point where I suggest you actually hold that auction instead of sharing your personal convictions that it would raise enough money for anything anyone would want on Mars. Last time you told me you were having trouble hiring a lawyer to set up a trust fund. Any progress to report?
Jim, I can’t figure out whether or not you’re spending what is no doubt your precious time helping Ken, or being mean to him. I gave up on either a long time ago.
Bezos is repeating an absurd meme, with the “one path…” comment.
In this meme, we have to go into space now, or else all future generations will not do so. It denies all those future generations agency to make their own decisions. “Sorry, we can’t go into space, because the folks back in 2016 didn’t do so.”
What this meme is really complaining about is that a decision to not go into space could be the right decision, on economic and practical grounds. It’s blaming the messenger for the message.
We determine our path and when, but the thing that is sure is the result will be in a range that includes possible extinction. The sooner we move, the less likely is extinction.
Had we made other choices in our history, humanity could already have been much richer per capita and already visiting other stars.