Let’s not send a few people to Mars as a grand survival experiment.
Introduction
Kelly and Zach Weinersmith start from the position of space settlement fans. They thought they would write a lighthearted book encouraging everything that would be great on Mars, the Moon, or in a space station. Unfortunately for the Weinersmiths, they asked questions like “How will that work exactly?” Aside from rocket technology (like getting into space), the answers were generally optimistic with a New Manifest Destiny slant that might make Andrew Jackson hesitate.
Human Biology and Psychology
The Weinersmiths begin by discussing human biology and psychology, moving on to technology, law, and population viability, ending with a call to action. Under each section, the Weinersmiths pose questions like: Can we thrive in space? Can we reproduce in space? Can we create settlements in space? The tour through all the things we actually don’t know is astounding. No one has envisioned anyone in low-gravity conditions, and no embryos have been developed in low-gravity conditions, so we just don’t know if it’s an issue. Astronauts suffer from bone and muscle loss, and no one knows how that affects them long-term. More importantly, do we really want to find out by sending a few people to Mars and hoping everything goes well?
Building Settlements and Recycling
The surprise for me was that no one really knows how to build a long-term livable settlement on the Moon or Mars. Yes, there are plenty of passing ideas about lava tubes and shielding regolith. But the details are missing. It reminds me of the dark days in Europe when settlements were established on others’ lands. The stories of ill-prepared settlers are sad, funny, and repetitive. And now we’re discovering that we plan for more at least.
Space Law
I certainly was not aware of how much law relates to space. It exists and has a lot to say about what you can and cannot do in space. The Weinersmiths found that most space settlement fans seem to believe these laws won’t apply to them somehow, or that there’s a loophole they can exploit. Worse still, they seem to think that such exploitation would be consequence-free. Apparently, nuclear-armed nations will not react negatively to private citizens laying claim to vast stretches of space.
Fair Distribution of Resources
The Weinersmiths treat all experts kindly. But frankly, when reading between the lines, there is a thick thread of classical liberalism dominating the space settlement community. From these experts’ perspective, they need a really big telescope to see reality. For example, they assume space will end scarcity… yet any space settlement will inherently have only one source of food and water, and most importantly, oxygen, creating a scarcity (possibly artificial). The idea seems to be that everyone will go to space for profit, except for life’s necessities, where we will all be compassionate and cooperative. The magical thinking is more apparent when you realize it’s believed that confronting vast space will make humanity highly altruistic, while at the same time being good capitalism. I have my doubts that this philosophy will work out well for anyone involved.
Experiments in Corporate Cities
In a more realistic view of how communities operate when there is only one source of life’s vitality, the Weinersmiths draw on positive and negative experiences in corporate cities. Not everything is bad: some corporate cities have operated very well and fairly, while others can be devoted as a shrine to small dictatorships. There’s no reason, the Weinersmiths say, to believe we won’t see the same thing in space, with the added drawback of being unable to escape from corporate cities.
Resources
Scarcity and Mining
The idea that other resources like ores won’t be scarce is overly optimistic. No one knows if you can make a profit from asteroid mining. The moon has nothing of value. And do you really want to create a bunch of hungry, disgruntled miners who could also hurl very large rocks at the Earth?
Call to Action
The book “City on Mars” ends with a kind of call to action. The point is that we have a small space station, and we have the ability to build several experimental facilities on Earth where we can investigate some practical problems. Let’s get human habitation and engineering right before we send people to Mars. While the technology is being worked on, let’s clarify the law so that if we settle elsewhere, we do it in a way that won’t start a war between nuclear-armed nations.
I believe the point that “City on Mars” is trying to illustrate is that the only clear evidence of how space affects humans strongly tilts against going. This balance can be shifted by doing the work to uncover answers to some of the questions raised in the book. However, it seems ethically questionable to throw a group of people into the metaphorical deep end to get those answers. So, perhaps the work should be done first?
Reader Comments
Chris writes for the science section of Ars Technica. By day, he is a physicist, and by night, a science writer, specializing in quantum physics and optics. He lives and works in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/a-city-on-mars-reality-kills-space-settlement-dreams/
Leave a Reply