Wanted: People Willing to Die on Mars(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Wanted: People Willing to Die on Mars
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/03/16/mars-one-live-die-mars.html?cmp=rss
151 comments
Guys, it's pretty obvious edw519 is talking about his grandfathers emigrating to a brand new nation and leaving the old one behind forever. Lots of world travel was incredibly expensive.
[deleted]
Both of your grandfathers have been to Mars? How come we never heard of this before?
If Mars can be mined for water (and it looks like it can), there is no reason to make it a one-way trip only. Sending people there with the explicit expectation to die soon speaks of poor planning and not a lot of willingness to export the basic tenets of humanity into space with us. It's a bad precedent, it carries the wrong message about the value of intelligent life, and I'm afraid the mission's limitations also impact its overall chances of success.
Although we have experienced a sad regression in our space capabilities, there is nothing in principle preventing us from sending humans and basic building blocks there, let them build a decent base, and then instate a regular shuttling service. Even if building the outpost takes 10 years, that's not the same as sending them onto a suicide mission as the article implies.
We're missing a lot of necessary infrastructure for this though, and without it the stated Sept. 2022 launch date might as well be 2122 or even 4022. We'll need a moon base to stage this thing (not only the initial flight but more importantly the supply line), and if we're serious about expanding into the solar system, one or two space elevators are probably a necessity. The political will to build any of these, never mind maintaining them, does not exist. We're too busy propping up corrupt political and financial systems, not to mention the importance of waging an eternal war the expenses of which could provide enough for a decent colonialization program many times over.
Scraping together a suicide team and shooting it roughly in Mars' general direction is not the answer to this problem.
Although we have experienced a sad regression in our space capabilities, there is nothing in principle preventing us from sending humans and basic building blocks there, let them build a decent base, and then instate a regular shuttling service. Even if building the outpost takes 10 years, that's not the same as sending them onto a suicide mission as the article implies.
We're missing a lot of necessary infrastructure for this though, and without it the stated Sept. 2022 launch date might as well be 2122 or even 4022. We'll need a moon base to stage this thing (not only the initial flight but more importantly the supply line), and if we're serious about expanding into the solar system, one or two space elevators are probably a necessity. The political will to build any of these, never mind maintaining them, does not exist. We're too busy propping up corrupt political and financial systems, not to mention the importance of waging an eternal war the expenses of which could provide enough for a decent colonialization program many times over.
Scraping together a suicide team and shooting it roughly in Mars' general direction is not the answer to this problem.
> Scraping together a suicide team and shooting it roughly in Mars' general direction is not the answer to this problem.
I think you misunderstand. While the linked article is brief, the one-way plan isn't to send a ship-full of people with suicide pills, but to supply them for the next 40-80 years from Earth.
Because of the hilarities of the rocket equation, it is cheaper to send rocket after rocket full of water, breathable air, food, fuel, and other supplies than it is to send enough rocket fuel for a return trip. Like, way cheaper. As the article says, the technology for a return trip just doesn't exist; the technology for a series of one-way trips does.
I think you misunderstand. While the linked article is brief, the one-way plan isn't to send a ship-full of people with suicide pills, but to supply them for the next 40-80 years from Earth.
Because of the hilarities of the rocket equation, it is cheaper to send rocket after rocket full of water, breathable air, food, fuel, and other supplies than it is to send enough rocket fuel for a return trip. Like, way cheaper. As the article says, the technology for a return trip just doesn't exist; the technology for a series of one-way trips does.
> the one-way plan isn't to send a ship-full of people with suicide pills
Maybe I got caught up in the ridiculousness of the article's sensational tone, but even so there is no technical reason to actually plan on never having return flights. This relates directly to your other statement:
As I wrote in the parent comment, the presence of water on Mars allows for the production of rocket fuel on site. This ties in to where I mentioned extended infrastructure such as a space elevator and a Moon base, because those too will make trips back and forth economical (instead of scraping everything together for a singular "by the skin of our teeth" mission like this one).
I wrote about these points for a reason ;)
Maybe I got caught up in the ridiculousness of the article's sensational tone, but even so there is no technical reason to actually plan on never having return flights. This relates directly to your other statement:
As I wrote in the parent comment, the presence of water on Mars allows for the production of rocket fuel on site. This ties in to where I mentioned extended infrastructure such as a space elevator and a Moon base, because those too will make trips back and forth economical (instead of scraping everything together for a singular "by the skin of our teeth" mission like this one).
I wrote about these points for a reason ;)
While perhaps a return may some day be possible, the point is people are being recruited without that promise. So that, e.g. they realize that if they get sick, or seriously injured, or even just change their mind, there is no way to get back.
> send enough rocket fuel for a return trip
That hasn't been the plan for a long time. NASA's Design Reference Mission, and the one anyone who has studied Mars missions at any point in the past 20 years, is to manufacture fuel on Mars. In fact, you would probably send this equipment to Mars first so that the astronauts going to Mars would have a fully fueled return ship ready and waiting for them before they even take off from Earth.
That hasn't been the plan for a long time. NASA's Design Reference Mission, and the one anyone who has studied Mars missions at any point in the past 20 years, is to manufacture fuel on Mars. In fact, you would probably send this equipment to Mars first so that the astronauts going to Mars would have a fully fueled return ship ready and waiting for them before they even take off from Earth.
The only problem with that is we would have to get a lot better at building rockets first. Currently it seems to take a fairly large crew (and clean rooms and a lot of care) to get a successful launch off earth, and even then there are often glitches. Getting the Moon lander to launch from the moon surface was easier due to lower gravity and no atmosphere. But I can't imagine a rocket on Mars sitting there for a couple years with an automatic fueling station, and having it launch successfully after getting battered by dust storms and any other corrosives present on Mars.
> As the article says, the technology for a return trip just doesn't exist; the technology for a series of one-way trips does.
Implying that we won't come up with that technology by the time we get people there.
Implying that we won't come up with that technology by the time we get people there.
Well. No he wasn't.
There's also a real possibility that the technology doesn't exist. There's an even greater possibility that it does, and we arn't capable of comprehending it.
There's also a real possibility that the technology doesn't exist. There's an even greater possibility that it does, and we arn't capable of comprehending it.
"Die on mars" does not mean "die soon". This proposal is not a suicide mission.
"MEN WANTED FOR HAZARDOUS JOURNEY. SMALL WAGES,
BITTER COLD, LONG MONTHS OF COMPLETE DARKNESS,
CONSTANT DANGER, SAFE RETURN DOUBTFUL. HONOR AND
RECOGNITION IN CASE OF SUCCESS."My biggest fear would not be dying on Mars or on the way to it.
My biggest fear would be having the novelty wear off and coming to the realization that I just moved to a trailer park.. on mars.
My biggest fear would be having the novelty wear off and coming to the realization that I just moved to a trailer park.. on mars.
Definitely the first people on Mars shouldn't do so merely to live on Mars, they should be the sort of people who are going to build Mars up. And if that's the case then it's unlikely the novelty will wear off quickly. There is a lot to do on Mars and a surprising amount can be done with fairly small amounts of capital equipment. Within the first few trips there could be enough equipment to bootstrap a Martian industrial base with production of Water, Oxygen, Methane, and Carbon Monoxide from the ground and the air. Which means you can provide resources for living, of course, with water and Oxygen, but also you can provide rocket fuel (liquid methane and Oxygen), and fuel for combustion powered surface vehicles (compressed methane and Oxygen), and resources for growing plants, and resources for smelting Iron (CO). In a few short years a Martian colony could be producing food, concrete, Iron and steel, even plastics, all from local materials. And in not many years after that it could be producing everything from fully functional Mars habitats to microchips to spacecraft.
For people with drive and know how there would be as much excitement as they desire.
For people with drive and know how there would be as much excitement as they desire.
Yup, it just depends on what mentality you take with you. If you sign up for this with the mentality that you're going to have lots of fun and how amazing Mars is going to be, obviously the disappointment is going to set it very quickly. But if you go there with the goal of building everything from the ground up and knowing that it's going to be a very crappy place to live in for quite a while, then I think it would be hard to be disappointed. As you said, there is a lot of work to do and each little project would just add to the excitement of living there. At least for me it would.
Valeri Polyakov spent 437 days on the space station "Mir" - an environment at least an order of magnitude more limited than Mars, I'd say. Wikipedia has this information about his mission:
"Polyakov underwent medical assessments before, during, and after the flight. He also underwent two follow-up examinations six months after returning to Earth. When researchers compared the results of these medical exams, it was revealed that although there were no impairments of cognitive functions, Polyakov experienced a clear decline in mood as well as a feeling of increased workload during the first few weeks of spaceflight and return to Earth.[6][7] However, Polyakov's mood stabilized to pre-flight levels between the second and fourteenth month of his mission. It was also revealed that Polyakov did not suffer from any prolonged performance impairments after returning to Earth. In light of these findings, researchers concluded that a stable mood and overall function could be maintained during extended duration spaceflights, such as manned missions to Mars."
"Polyakov underwent medical assessments before, during, and after the flight. He also underwent two follow-up examinations six months after returning to Earth. When researchers compared the results of these medical exams, it was revealed that although there were no impairments of cognitive functions, Polyakov experienced a clear decline in mood as well as a feeling of increased workload during the first few weeks of spaceflight and return to Earth.[6][7] However, Polyakov's mood stabilized to pre-flight levels between the second and fourteenth month of his mission. It was also revealed that Polyakov did not suffer from any prolonged performance impairments after returning to Earth. In light of these findings, researchers concluded that a stable mood and overall function could be maintained during extended duration spaceflights, such as manned missions to Mars."
>My biggest fear would be having the novelty wear off and coming to the realization that I just moved to a trailer park.. on mars.
The problem with trailer parks is not the trailers; it's the other people
and the ownership model. It's a terrible ownership model, really; you usually own a (not actually mobile) manufactured home, but you rent the land.
The screwed up thing is that when the rent goes up in the park, the value of your mobile home drops, making moving even harder.
I'd be happy to live in one of the bay-area mobile home parks if the ownership model of the land was more like the condo ownership model, where the tenants own the common areas, well, in common.
But yeah. "who else is on the trip" would certainly be my first question, but I would imagine that you'd mostly get interesting people.
The problem with trailer parks is not the trailers; it's the other people
and the ownership model. It's a terrible ownership model, really; you usually own a (not actually mobile) manufactured home, but you rent the land.
The screwed up thing is that when the rent goes up in the park, the value of your mobile home drops, making moving even harder.
I'd be happy to live in one of the bay-area mobile home parks if the ownership model of the land was more like the condo ownership model, where the tenants own the common areas, well, in common.
But yeah. "who else is on the trip" would certainly be my first question, but I would imagine that you'd mostly get interesting people.
They will certainly find people. However these people won't die of old age. Radiation alone will make sure of that.
Whether this project has any point at all is a question of rational thinking vs. mass psychology. Scientists will tell you that it is pointless to send humans to Mars. All research can be done with robots - cheaper and without endangering human life.
However, a human colony on Mars might generate irrational public excitement which in return could lead to governments investing more money into space travel and colonization again.
I said irrational excitement because we know we can do it. NASA simply hasn't done it because there is neither money nor a rational reason for it. If the US government wanted to NASA could have a Mars colony up and running in no time. As the article points out the technology already exists.
Personally I believe the irrational excitement factor will be a strong one and thus these people who basically sign up to die of radiation poisoning will end up being true "space pioneers".
However, I doubt that Mars One will actually manage to secure the necessary funding. So I am not getting excited about this yet.
Whether this project has any point at all is a question of rational thinking vs. mass psychology. Scientists will tell you that it is pointless to send humans to Mars. All research can be done with robots - cheaper and without endangering human life.
However, a human colony on Mars might generate irrational public excitement which in return could lead to governments investing more money into space travel and colonization again.
I said irrational excitement because we know we can do it. NASA simply hasn't done it because there is neither money nor a rational reason for it. If the US government wanted to NASA could have a Mars colony up and running in no time. As the article points out the technology already exists.
Personally I believe the irrational excitement factor will be a strong one and thus these people who basically sign up to die of radiation poisoning will end up being true "space pioneers".
However, I doubt that Mars One will actually manage to secure the necessary funding. So I am not getting excited about this yet.
I wonder how many people are willing to take on the real adventure of living in any of the twenty poorest countries in the world, or twenty most tyrannical countries of the world (there is overlap between the two sets) to try to change those from the inside. When I was in high school, going to a high school that was named after an astronaut just after the first moon landing, I thought it was completely natural to have the ambition to be the first man to set foot on Mars. I'm stunned that at this late date I could STILL be the first man to set foot on Mars.
But as I grew into adult life, and visited more than one country here on Earth, I began to think that it is an even higher and more challenging ambition to go somewhere you are not constrained to go by desire for fame or for riches or for being the first in a new territory, but rather by a desire to solve intractable problems. Solving a problem of long standing is a bigger achievement than solving a problem that is unsolved mostly just because no one has found it worthwhile to solve it. Making any of the world's poorest countries richer in general, or making any of the world's most oppressed countries freer in general, is a problem for which some example solutions exist, just as traveling to other planets has some precedent in the manned moon missions and in robot space probes, but I suggest it is actually a much tougher and more interesting problem, a problem more worthy of a gnarly man willing to risk his life. I still admire astronauts, and I've exposed all four of my children to books and films about space exploration, but I'd be even more thrilled to see them or other young people I know take on the exploration challenge of bringing about improvement in the lives of their fellow human beings in the worst-off parts of planet Earth. There is a lot of challenging science involved in those problems, and the contributions to human knowledge that will come from solving those problems will provide lasting benefit to all of humankind, whatever planet our descendants live on.
AFTER EDIT: Two comments below mention "paternalism." Nope. I am talking about "fraternalism," sharing in the life of the people where you live, understanding their problems deeply because they become your problems too, and then building solutions from the neighborhoods you live in. You can't jet-set that in, and you can't phone it in or international consultant it in, you can only live it in. I've asked before here on Hacker News how many of the participants here have ever even lived in (not just visited, but lived in) a third-world country. Not many have. (I have, and it was a dictatorship when I lived there, and as a foreign national I was part of the process of nudging it to become the democracy it is today.) To be a brother of your fellow human beings is a great adventure. It's harder than armchair criticism, but also more challenging and interesting.
But as I grew into adult life, and visited more than one country here on Earth, I began to think that it is an even higher and more challenging ambition to go somewhere you are not constrained to go by desire for fame or for riches or for being the first in a new territory, but rather by a desire to solve intractable problems. Solving a problem of long standing is a bigger achievement than solving a problem that is unsolved mostly just because no one has found it worthwhile to solve it. Making any of the world's poorest countries richer in general, or making any of the world's most oppressed countries freer in general, is a problem for which some example solutions exist, just as traveling to other planets has some precedent in the manned moon missions and in robot space probes, but I suggest it is actually a much tougher and more interesting problem, a problem more worthy of a gnarly man willing to risk his life. I still admire astronauts, and I've exposed all four of my children to books and films about space exploration, but I'd be even more thrilled to see them or other young people I know take on the exploration challenge of bringing about improvement in the lives of their fellow human beings in the worst-off parts of planet Earth. There is a lot of challenging science involved in those problems, and the contributions to human knowledge that will come from solving those problems will provide lasting benefit to all of humankind, whatever planet our descendants live on.
AFTER EDIT: Two comments below mention "paternalism." Nope. I am talking about "fraternalism," sharing in the life of the people where you live, understanding their problems deeply because they become your problems too, and then building solutions from the neighborhoods you live in. You can't jet-set that in, and you can't phone it in or international consultant it in, you can only live it in. I've asked before here on Hacker News how many of the participants here have ever even lived in (not just visited, but lived in) a third-world country. Not many have. (I have, and it was a dictatorship when I lived there, and as a foreign national I was part of the process of nudging it to become the democracy it is today.) To be a brother of your fellow human beings is a great adventure. It's harder than armchair criticism, but also more challenging and interesting.
Not me.
We mostly know the solutions to fixing the most oppressed or otherwise defective parts of the world; we just don't find it worthwhile to implement those solutions. I could solve 90% Equatorial Guinea's problems for <$10mm and a promise of immunity from prosecution or extradition by major world powers (i.e. places I'd actually be, afterward). Scaling that up for other countries is possible, too. For problems not requiring a ballistic solution, Bill Gates is doing a seriously effective job of solving the polio problem, and major headway into malaria.
The solutions to the most defective countries are all pretty straightforward and widely known; it's figuring out how to turn decent but not ideal countries like Pakistan into really stable first-world countries which would be hard, or figuring out how to stem the long-term decline in the US. (Yes, there are implementation difficulties in a place like Somalia, but it's because the benefit isn't worth the expense in blood/treasure. The cheap solution is to let the 1% of people who could make their lives a lot better by leaving do so.)
The skills required to solve the harder sociological problems don't really have much overlap with the skills to send people to Mars.
Bringing those places up to standard doesn't really give you anything new, although it does help those people. Putting humans on Mars is something we've never done before, and could lead to amazing technologies and opportunities for humanity. Just like I'd rather be a medical researcher than a family practice doctor, I'd rather push the limits of what's possible vs. contribute to more widespread adequacy, although both bring up the mean. I'm glad there exist both kinds of people, though.
We mostly know the solutions to fixing the most oppressed or otherwise defective parts of the world; we just don't find it worthwhile to implement those solutions. I could solve 90% Equatorial Guinea's problems for <$10mm and a promise of immunity from prosecution or extradition by major world powers (i.e. places I'd actually be, afterward). Scaling that up for other countries is possible, too. For problems not requiring a ballistic solution, Bill Gates is doing a seriously effective job of solving the polio problem, and major headway into malaria.
The solutions to the most defective countries are all pretty straightforward and widely known; it's figuring out how to turn decent but not ideal countries like Pakistan into really stable first-world countries which would be hard, or figuring out how to stem the long-term decline in the US. (Yes, there are implementation difficulties in a place like Somalia, but it's because the benefit isn't worth the expense in blood/treasure. The cheap solution is to let the 1% of people who could make their lives a lot better by leaving do so.)
The skills required to solve the harder sociological problems don't really have much overlap with the skills to send people to Mars.
Bringing those places up to standard doesn't really give you anything new, although it does help those people. Putting humans on Mars is something we've never done before, and could lead to amazing technologies and opportunities for humanity. Just like I'd rather be a medical researcher than a family practice doctor, I'd rather push the limits of what's possible vs. contribute to more widespread adequacy, although both bring up the mean. I'm glad there exist both kinds of people, though.
> I could solve 90% Equatorial Guinea's problems for <$10mm and a promise of immunity from prosecution or extradition by major world powers (i.e. places I'd actually be, afterward). Scaling that up for other countries is possible, too.
Oh really? What's your plan? How do you intend on ensuring that culture is preserved while you implement this plan? Or do you believe that Western culture is superior because it has been more successful in the last 100 years (forgetting that segregation ended less than 50 years ago, if you must include the eradication of entire populations as "successes," we can call it 500 years)? Even Bill Gates will admit that his solutions are imperfect at times.
The tricky part is a sustainable solution. Sure, you can throw money at problems, but how is the solution going to last? Like you said, there is already a lot of money involved (e.g. Bill Gates) in philanthropy, yet the problems haven't been solved yet. This indicates that the solution is trickier than you think. And if there is someone smart enough to engineer a solution, I would like to think Bill Gates is very qualified for such a position.
EDIT: Mainly, if you don't account for the culture of a place, a solution will likely not be popular enough to work (HIV prevention and treatment suffers from this problem).
Oh really? What's your plan? How do you intend on ensuring that culture is preserved while you implement this plan? Or do you believe that Western culture is superior because it has been more successful in the last 100 years (forgetting that segregation ended less than 50 years ago, if you must include the eradication of entire populations as "successes," we can call it 500 years)? Even Bill Gates will admit that his solutions are imperfect at times.
The tricky part is a sustainable solution. Sure, you can throw money at problems, but how is the solution going to last? Like you said, there is already a lot of money involved (e.g. Bill Gates) in philanthropy, yet the problems haven't been solved yet. This indicates that the solution is trickier than you think. And if there is someone smart enough to engineer a solution, I would like to think Bill Gates is very qualified for such a position.
EDIT: Mainly, if you don't account for the culture of a place, a solution will likely not be popular enough to work (HIV prevention and treatment suffers from this problem).
Ryan - I'm on the Epidemiological Modeling team funded personally by BillG. I concur that the skillset required to solve problems on our planet (eradicating infectious diseases in our case) is completely different than those required for inter-galactic exploration. Perhaps the only overlap would be Mathematics, but that's the foundation for pretty much everything.
Shantanu - You're right. Simply throwing money cannot solve global issues and no single person including Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett combined have the monetary resources at their disposal to tackle even 5% of global issues. However, they're the right kind of people to take on sociological challenges and eradicating diseases because there's a lot more to the problem than that. For instance, bureaucracy, corruption, beliefs, natural causes, etc. I was really surprised (shouldn't have been) to learn that a significant portion of their funds are allocated for dealing with corrupt governments for our mission to globally eradicate diseases like Polio, Malaria, HIV, TB, etc. With my limited experience in that realm, I can state that the problem is definitely way more complex than it appears at the surface (and I think you get that as well).
Shantanu - You're right. Simply throwing money cannot solve global issues and no single person including Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett combined have the monetary resources at their disposal to tackle even 5% of global issues. However, they're the right kind of people to take on sociological challenges and eradicating diseases because there's a lot more to the problem than that. For instance, bureaucracy, corruption, beliefs, natural causes, etc. I was really surprised (shouldn't have been) to learn that a significant portion of their funds are allocated for dealing with corrupt governments for our mission to globally eradicate diseases like Polio, Malaria, HIV, TB, etc. With my limited experience in that realm, I can state that the problem is definitely way more complex than it appears at the surface (and I think you get that as well).
I don't think I could do a particularly good job running the country, and wouldn't try (beyond a few weeks/months in transition). There are plenty of other African leaders in other countries, particularly elected in the past ~10 years, who are far better. I don't think there's any reason why EG wouldn't be able to come up with some domestic political leadership which was better than what they have now. The problem is the nexus of oil wealth and foreign support has allowed Obiang to remain for decades.
The less violent solution would be a trade embargo of the country (at least, not allowing them to sell oil).
The less violent solution would be a trade embargo of the country (at least, not allowing them to sell oil).
Practically speaking, how do you ensure that the new government doesn't become corrupt in a year or two? Or more importantly, how do you restore the people's faith in their government so that they participate?
Also, how would a trade embargo "fix" a country? Perhaps it would force a dictator to lessen or hide civil rights violations, but it would not repair the economy or necessarily give people more confidence in their government.
Also, how would a trade embargo "fix" a country? Perhaps it would force a dictator to lessen or hide civil rights violations, but it would not repair the economy or necessarily give people more confidence in their government.
> Practically speaking, how do you ensure that the new government doesn't become corrupt in a year or two? Or more importantly, how do you restore the people's faith in their government so that they participate?
Here's how I'd do it: pass laws specifically forbidding these actions by government officials, the punishment being death. And then when someone violates the law, you kill them. You wouldn't have to do this too many times before the problem magically disappeared.
I think this would both fix the corruption problem as well as restore faith in government.
Here's how I'd do it: pass laws specifically forbidding these actions by government officials, the punishment being death. And then when someone violates the law, you kill them. You wouldn't have to do this too many times before the problem magically disappeared.
I think this would both fix the corruption problem as well as restore faith in government.
> Here's how I'd do it: pass laws specifically forbidding these actions by government officials, the punishment being death. And then when someone violates the law, you kill them. You wouldn't have to do this too many times before the problem magically disappeared.
All that would do is wind up killing a bunch of 3rd party candidates and anti-establishment types. You can't simply place a law and then expect it to be 100% accurate let alone the people determining guilt be 100% ethical. A corrupt judge could kill a whole lot of people with this type of law.
All that would do is wind up killing a bunch of 3rd party candidates and anti-establishment types. You can't simply place a law and then expect it to be 100% accurate let alone the people determining guilt be 100% ethical. A corrupt judge could kill a whole lot of people with this type of law.
My assertion is that there are different levels of corruption. If EG ended up being just as corrupt as Nigeria after the eliminating of the current regime, it would still be a victory for the people. They might even do better than that.
And maybe structurally changing how oil revenues are handled; not allowing any new leader to directly control them for personal benefit.
And maybe structurally changing how oil revenues are handled; not allowing any new leader to directly control them for personal benefit.
that only works if the corruption hadn't reached the courts. and how does the average citizen check that?
corruption has to be fixed from a third party.
> that only works if the corruption hadn't reached the courts. and how does the average citizen check that? corruption has to be fixed from a third party.
You are 95% right. The problem is, the third party always decides it might be a good idea to take something for themselves, and we're right back where we started.
But I don't buy the idea that it's not possible, it's just never been tried before.
You are 95% right. The problem is, the third party always decides it might be a good idea to take something for themselves, and we're right back where we started.
But I don't buy the idea that it's not possible, it's just never been tried before.
Probably this is one area where an oil embargo would be more helpful in combination with removal of the government. An external power could enforce an embargo against oil unless a substantial percentage was spent on domestic infrastructure and programs, vs. funneled into a dictator's personal accounts.
"Oil for food" in Iraq in the 1990s was a horrible fiasco, but there have been cases where natural resource wealth hasn't been strictly a curse.
For ongoing security and government assistance, probably the only entity able to credibly do anything in EG is the AU, which has become a lot more credible in the past 5-10 years.
"Oil for food" in Iraq in the 1990s was a horrible fiasco, but there have been cases where natural resource wealth hasn't been strictly a curse.
For ongoing security and government assistance, probably the only entity able to credibly do anything in EG is the AU, which has become a lot more credible in the past 5-10 years.
[deleted]
> I could solve 90% Equatorial Guinea's problems for <$10mm and a promise of immunity from prosecution or extradition by major world powers (i.e. places I'd actually be, afterward).
How so? And why is immunity required?
How so? And why is immunity required?
Assassinating foreign heads of state, particularly those who have business interests closely allied with US corporations, isn't legal. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo doesn't deserve something as clean as a bullet, but for reasons of practicality, it'll do. (and, realistically, you'd have to eliminate the entire leadership; it's essentially a corrupt group who pocket oil wealth and rule through fear and oppression. However, they sell oil relatively cheaply to the US, so they're good guys.) Mark Thatcher, son of the former UK PM, essentially tried this in 2004, but was undercapitalized.
> Assassinating foreign heads of state
But who will replace them? Didn't we try something like this during the Cold War multiple times and end up introducing even more totalitarian "democratic" governments?
But who will replace them? Didn't we try something like this during the Cold War multiple times and end up introducing even more totalitarian "democratic" governments?
The cold war was a special case, as we had ideological reasons to pick replacement governments who basically sucked even worse than those they replaced. In a country where most of the decent people who could go into government are somewhat leftist, replacing a hard-line communist with someone who will resist the other leftists (for your own ideological reasons) is a lot more likely to produce a situation like Pinochet than just replacing a criminal despot with virtually anyone else.
I don't think the US really tried replacing with "democratic" governments, either -- just with US allied dictators. We supported a lot of really evil people because they brought stability and nominal pro-US interests. I'm not advocating that; I'm just saying get rid of some bad leadership with virtually anyone else, with no ongoing agenda. That is a far lower bar to cross.
I don't think the US really tried replacing with "democratic" governments, either -- just with US allied dictators. We supported a lot of really evil people because they brought stability and nominal pro-US interests. I'm not advocating that; I'm just saying get rid of some bad leadership with virtually anyone else, with no ongoing agenda. That is a far lower bar to cross.
I think you vastly underestimate the difficulty of "fixing" a country. I think Russia is a good example: communism fell, but that doesn't mean things have necessarily gotten better for the average citizen. You could replace the entire government of Equatorial Guinea, but that won't address the problems like poor education that underlying many poor country's problems.
I agree entirely for middle tier countries (which Russia was -- and, honestly, Iraq under Saddam was). For really defective places (NK, Somalia, EG, maybe Afghanistan under the Taliban, ...), your odds of killing the leadership and randomly replacing are much more likely to give you something adequate. It doesn't always work out, and it's hard when you have set yourself up for failure (like the US did in Afghanistan, for a variety of reasons, but I don't think just eliminating AQ and some of the Taliban leadership was doomed to turn out badly), but in a lot of cases it's beneficial.
You discount so many variables that go into making a place a "good" place to live that it's actually a little humorous to read these posts.
Look, EG is, I'm pretty certain, almost 90% Fang. That probably doesn't mean much to you but for Africans... tribal affinities matter. The idea that you would get rid of one government, and another would govern appreciably differently in EG is fanciful. Add to that Oil and then unexploited Gold and Zinc deposits, and anyone who is familiar with Africa, and especially EG, would laugh heartily at your assertions.
Places like the MidEast and North Africa also have more issues than can be solved by changing governments. For instance, the reality in Somalia, or indeed even Egypt, is that there are hard Bio-Physical resource constraints that are not going away. Desertification and Soil Salination are mother nature's method of breathing. And she doesn't care about governmental edicts. Egypt's population is around 80M I think... and I'm pretty sure the arable land is right around 2% and it drops every year. Somalia is what... 10 maybe 15 million? With MORE diversity (ie - tribes) and even LESS arable land.
One of the first things I learned working at Halliburton was that if a nation is importing energy AND food... it's in trouble. Nation building is much more than Civil Affairs. If the requisite people and materials aren't there ... it doesn't work. Full Stop.
"Bad" governments, for a given definition of "bad", are symptoms of problems. Not the problems themselves. The Taliban and the NA are manifestations of the lack of resources in Afghan land and the lack of trust among Afghan people. These are difficult problems to solve. And certainly simply changing the government will not make them go away.
Look, EG is, I'm pretty certain, almost 90% Fang. That probably doesn't mean much to you but for Africans... tribal affinities matter. The idea that you would get rid of one government, and another would govern appreciably differently in EG is fanciful. Add to that Oil and then unexploited Gold and Zinc deposits, and anyone who is familiar with Africa, and especially EG, would laugh heartily at your assertions.
Places like the MidEast and North Africa also have more issues than can be solved by changing governments. For instance, the reality in Somalia, or indeed even Egypt, is that there are hard Bio-Physical resource constraints that are not going away. Desertification and Soil Salination are mother nature's method of breathing. And she doesn't care about governmental edicts. Egypt's population is around 80M I think... and I'm pretty sure the arable land is right around 2% and it drops every year. Somalia is what... 10 maybe 15 million? With MORE diversity (ie - tribes) and even LESS arable land.
One of the first things I learned working at Halliburton was that if a nation is importing energy AND food... it's in trouble. Nation building is much more than Civil Affairs. If the requisite people and materials aren't there ... it doesn't work. Full Stop.
"Bad" governments, for a given definition of "bad", are symptoms of problems. Not the problems themselves. The Taliban and the NA are manifestations of the lack of resources in Afghan land and the lack of trust among Afghan people. These are difficult problems to solve. And certainly simply changing the government will not make them go away.
I agree the culture in EG is probably fairly stunted at best, and probably inadequate to the task of self government (once the ruling elite is gone). However, Obiang is an outlier. Getting rid of him is necessary but not sufficient to fix the country, and it's one thing AU won't do (because they're afraid of slippery-slope), and something the people can't do themselves.
The "stratfor" "geography drives political destiny" thing isn't predictive for small oil-rich countries. I mean, look at the smaller Gulf states. The issues in small oil-rich countries are essentially down to leadership. A broad democratic government is probably not the achievable goal, but something like Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, most of the Emirates, or Kuwait is far superior to EG.
The "stratfor" "geography drives political destiny" thing isn't predictive for small oil-rich countries. I mean, look at the smaller Gulf states. The issues in small oil-rich countries are essentially down to leadership. A broad democratic government is probably not the achievable goal, but something like Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, most of the Emirates, or Kuwait is far superior to EG.
What exactly do you mean by a lack of resources in Afghanistan? I've always heard that it was one of the richest places in the world of unexploited minerals. Does it need to be more specific than that?
Afghanistan has high amounts of mineral wealth locked away, but while it had decent irrigation and farming in the pre-Soviet period (near Kandahar; it's really shitty to fight in btw due to old irrigation channels and just enough cover/concealment to hinder UAVs), decades of war have really hurt the agricultural sector.
More importantly, decades of war have also essentially eliminated any societal reserves of trust, so corruption at all levels is the default. The only functional unit is the family or clan, and very minimal ties to higher units of a tribe -- not to the state. Individual governors, mayors, and police chiefs rule by personal charisma and graft, and bringing their pre-existing tribal relationships in. Organs of the state end up used to settle personal vendettas, too.
There's a lot of literature that national resources (extractive, with low local labor involvement) are a curse -- the "resource curse". Norway has done ok with its oil. Gulf societies have in some ways succeeded but in other ways oil has crippled them. African countries with mineral wealth usually end up relatively fucked compared to countries with productive agriculture or a vibrant commercial sector (Nigeria minus oil is actually pretty decent; Kenya is great. Ghana until recently had no resource based wealth and is basically the Chile of Africa).
More importantly, decades of war have also essentially eliminated any societal reserves of trust, so corruption at all levels is the default. The only functional unit is the family or clan, and very minimal ties to higher units of a tribe -- not to the state. Individual governors, mayors, and police chiefs rule by personal charisma and graft, and bringing their pre-existing tribal relationships in. Organs of the state end up used to settle personal vendettas, too.
There's a lot of literature that national resources (extractive, with low local labor involvement) are a curse -- the "resource curse". Norway has done ok with its oil. Gulf societies have in some ways succeeded but in other ways oil has crippled them. African countries with mineral wealth usually end up relatively fucked compared to countries with productive agriculture or a vibrant commercial sector (Nigeria minus oil is actually pretty decent; Kenya is great. Ghana until recently had no resource based wealth and is basically the Chile of Africa).
That is a historically naive assertion. Take a look at the list of countries in this article - most of them are still in pretty serious shit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_re...
It very rarely works out.
It very rarely works out.
The US government's interest in intervention is not "fix things for the residents" but "US interests" (which, during the cold war, essentially just meant opposition to the USSR and some basing rights or access to resources). Admittedly even by that metric, most of the US interventions have been failures.
There are a few cases where US/NATO intervention has been sort of helpful. Panama is probably better now that we got rid of Noriega, although we put him there in the first place. The Balkans at least didn't turn into a pan-European or WW3. French intervention in Mali seems at least not to be making things worse, and while they went into Rwanda late, they did at least settle things down. Australian forces actually did a lot of good in PNG/ET from what I've read, although I don't know too much about it.
There are a few cases where US/NATO intervention has been sort of helpful. Panama is probably better now that we got rid of Noriega, although we put him there in the first place. The Balkans at least didn't turn into a pan-European or WW3. French intervention in Mali seems at least not to be making things worse, and while they went into Rwanda late, they did at least settle things down. Australian forces actually did a lot of good in PNG/ET from what I've read, although I don't know too much about it.
I am from Balkans, Balkans conflicts were largely influenced and made worse from the outside, I would even say that they would not happen if there were not desire from Germany and other powers to make as much mess as possible.
Somehow Balkan conficts never got critical review from journalists and rosy propaganda stayed even to this day.
For example in present day Croatia there is only 7% of people who would actually stay to live there if they could go and live somewhere else. Danke Deutschland indeed.
Somehow Balkan conficts never got critical review from journalists and rosy propaganda stayed even to this day.
For example in present day Croatia there is only 7% of people who would actually stay to live there if they could go and live somewhere else. Danke Deutschland indeed.
"I am from Balkans, Balkans conflicts were largely influenced and made worse from the outside, I would even say that they would not happen if there were not desire from Germany and other powers to make as much mess as possible."
Would you mind saying which country you're from? I ask because I have recently met Serbians who seem like very good and reasonable people, but who have very different views on the conflict from the accepted view in the States and "Western" Europe. In particular, they are very nostalgic for Yugoslavia, and seem to think that yes, some bad things happened during the war, but that no one in particular was more genocidal than anyone else.
"For example in present day Croatia there is only 7% of people who would actually stay to live there if they could go and live somewhere else. Danke Deutschland indeed."
This is very surprising. I would love to see the source. Croatia is the only Balkan state now part of the EU… perhaps they'll find it rather easy to emigrate where they please.
Would you mind saying which country you're from? I ask because I have recently met Serbians who seem like very good and reasonable people, but who have very different views on the conflict from the accepted view in the States and "Western" Europe. In particular, they are very nostalgic for Yugoslavia, and seem to think that yes, some bad things happened during the war, but that no one in particular was more genocidal than anyone else.
"For example in present day Croatia there is only 7% of people who would actually stay to live there if they could go and live somewhere else. Danke Deutschland indeed."
This is very surprising. I would love to see the source. Croatia is the only Balkan state now part of the EU… perhaps they'll find it rather easy to emigrate where they please.
The Slovenians seemed to have the right thing set up -- closely allied with Austria, well defended, and basically stayed out of the whole mess. Also the only Balkan state I've visited, and aside from a tragic lack of vowels, an awesome place.
Where would people from Croatia go? All the ones I've met have been either KBR people in Iraq/Afghanistan or people in the US, and they seemed smart, but they were probably outliers. Germany, or US, or elsewhere?
I assume, and Australia, but the point is that no-one likes living in what Balkan turned out to be, not only in Croatia, others as well have similar situation, Bosnia probably has even worse, I happen to remember this number from recent study which is shocking.
My point is that those conflicts were stirred by industrial lobby's, not by genuine need to protect or save anyone.
My point is that those conflicts were stirred by industrial lobby's, not by genuine need to protect or save anyone.
How exactly did "Germany and other powers" cause the 1991-1995 war?
> Bringing those places up to standard doesn't really give you anything new, although it does help those people. Putting humans on Mars is something we've never done before, and could lead to amazing technologies and opportunities for humanity.
I take issue with this. Technological advancement over the last few millenia has been driven by how many smart minds we have at the table thinking of new ideas and new solutions to old problems. To get more folks at the table, we need for them to stop worrying about how to avoid gulags, and get them start training in emerging fields. People in Vietnam studying computer science will bring more technological marvels to your world than sending a rocket and biodome to Mars, the problems of which could mostly be tackled by first building biodomes in harsh environments on Earth, or by finding ways to conquer disease and get fresh water to more of the world's poor.
Build me a sealab and irrigate the Sahara, you don't need Mars to start working on those problems, and those problems could probably help you learn really important skills for Martian exploration (and eventual terraforming) while providing more immediate technological benefits to humanity.
I take issue with this. Technological advancement over the last few millenia has been driven by how many smart minds we have at the table thinking of new ideas and new solutions to old problems. To get more folks at the table, we need for them to stop worrying about how to avoid gulags, and get them start training in emerging fields. People in Vietnam studying computer science will bring more technological marvels to your world than sending a rocket and biodome to Mars, the problems of which could mostly be tackled by first building biodomes in harsh environments on Earth, or by finding ways to conquer disease and get fresh water to more of the world's poor.
Build me a sealab and irrigate the Sahara, you don't need Mars to start working on those problems, and those problems could probably help you learn really important skills for Martian exploration (and eventual terraforming) while providing more immediate technological benefits to humanity.
That's the strongest anti-Malthus/population-or-resource-bomb argument. I'm not sure if I ultimately agree with it myself (mainly because of the middle-income trap; I think having marginal SFBA-engineer level people would help advance science, but it's unclear if taking 500mm people from dirt-poor to $5k/yr income helps science, if it stops there, which it often does.)
Take note: this kind of thinking is what being purely an "ideas guy" leads to.
> The solutions to the most defective countries are all pretty straightforward and widely known.
Maybe you really do know the best solutions to every country's problems. Or maybe you know enough "rules of thumb" to get each of these countries to start moving in the right direction. That is not my point.
However, one "meta" problem is that most people are convinced that they know the solutions to the world's problems, and if everybody else would let them execute their solution, the world would be fixed.
Maybe you really do know the best solutions to every country's problems. Or maybe you know enough "rules of thumb" to get each of these countries to start moving in the right direction. That is not my point.
However, one "meta" problem is that most people are convinced that they know the solutions to the world's problems, and if everybody else would let them execute their solution, the world would be fixed.
>Making any of the world's poorest countries richer in general, or making any of the world's most oppressed countries freer in general, is [...] a much tougher and more interesting problem, a problem more worthy of a gnarly man willing to risk his life
Involving yourself in foreign politics is no substitute for going to Mars. Even if you magically turn Zimbabwe into a political and economic clone of Alabama, the overall capabilities and prospects of mankind remain substantially the same. Successful manned flight that expands our species to another planet is much more admirable and worthwhile from this point of view.
Involving yourself in foreign politics is no substitute for going to Mars. Even if you magically turn Zimbabwe into a political and economic clone of Alabama, the overall capabilities and prospects of mankind remain substantially the same. Successful manned flight that expands our species to another planet is much more admirable and worthwhile from this point of view.
> the overall capabilities and prospects of mankind remain substantially the same
I disagree. Advancement is directly related to how many minds we can free up to work on intellectual pursuits. Even before Moore's law, publications and rate of invention largely tracked with size of population (minus the portion preoccupied with agriculture).
Going to Mars involves calibrating some rockets and making a sustainable habitat for long periods of time. Hard problems, to be sure, but there's nothing about that trip we would do without thoroughly testing it first on Earth. We mostly know how to send projectiles throughout the solar system, and we mostly know that long term stays in space suck, and we mostly know that robots and telescopes pay back orders of magnitude more in scientific discoveries than equivalent manned missions for the cost. (ie, manned missions have the mirrors on the moon and tang, hubble and curiosity have contributed far more to space science...)
I disagree. Advancement is directly related to how many minds we can free up to work on intellectual pursuits. Even before Moore's law, publications and rate of invention largely tracked with size of population (minus the portion preoccupied with agriculture).
Going to Mars involves calibrating some rockets and making a sustainable habitat for long periods of time. Hard problems, to be sure, but there's nothing about that trip we would do without thoroughly testing it first on Earth. We mostly know how to send projectiles throughout the solar system, and we mostly know that long term stays in space suck, and we mostly know that robots and telescopes pay back orders of magnitude more in scientific discoveries than equivalent manned missions for the cost. (ie, manned missions have the mirrors on the moon and tang, hubble and curiosity have contributed far more to space science...)
[deleted]
The kind of people that have the abilities and desire to "change systems from within" are very different from the kind of people that are good at "making better systems from scratch", or "making new systems in places with limited resources". Dealing with complicated peopleware meshes and solving resource reallocation problems is a completely different problem from surviving and thriving in a harsh environment with limited resources. The people needed to solve these types of problems think and see things very differently, they never get along with each other, and I'd imagine that if an alien psychologist would visit our planet, (s)he could literally consider them different species!
I spent the last year in Bangladesh and indeed it did have an effect on my interest in going to Mars. So thanks for also making the connection.
Literally on the one hand I want to say "sign me up!" and yet on the other hand, after my experience living in isolation and without so many comforts in Bangladesh, I do worry I'd regret giving up on so much to move to Mars.
Alienation, isolating, and the lack of comforts give you a lot of time to think, and it's easy to think you've made a mistake. I wouldn't want to be haunted by that feeling. On the other hand, to explore red martian rocks on the edge of human civilization... it has a romantic appeal.
When romantic appeal and "the real thing" meet, sometimes it's not all happy.
Literally on the one hand I want to say "sign me up!" and yet on the other hand, after my experience living in isolation and without so many comforts in Bangladesh, I do worry I'd regret giving up on so much to move to Mars.
Alienation, isolating, and the lack of comforts give you a lot of time to think, and it's easy to think you've made a mistake. I wouldn't want to be haunted by that feeling. On the other hand, to explore red martian rocks on the edge of human civilization... it has a romantic appeal.
When romantic appeal and "the real thing" meet, sometimes it's not all happy.
You sound like an excellent candidate to further promote and maintain U.S. interests in one of the numerous Third World countries. A person who already has much experience in destabilizing efforts to facilitate the overthrow of non-cooperative governments. As John Perkins outlined in his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", we need people like you to further our Western economic and political interests by keeping the Third World countries in Third World conditions so we can have access to cheap labor, cheap resources, sites for our military bases (which we already have close to a thousand), and establish a pro-western crony capitalist dictatorship dressed as a democracy. Currently we have openings in NGO front organizations which are well funded to sway populaces toward our own candidates. We also need people to pose as missionaries and report on peasant activism. I can tell you are open to much sacrifice but rest assured you would be well compensated. I recommend you begin by contacting one of the many front organizations headed by the CIA.
Isn't this just western paternalism phrased to sound noble?
Here we come, with our advanced ways, to fix problems you might not even consider problems.
Here we come, with our advanced ways, to fix problems you might not even consider problems.
On the one hand, yes.
On the other hand, the inclination to scream 'paternalism' when folks from cosmopolitan cultures talk about problems in homogeneous ones that are struggling with problems caused by modernity, I think, is often naive
Problems like the overpopulation that occurs when you introduce modern medicine and the green revolution but don't couple that with family planning cannot simply be fixed by organic cultural isolation.
There's a sense that we talk abut rich v poor or western v exotic or etc but the better comparison is cosmopolitan-global vs homogeneous-traditional. The latter simply cannot compete against the problems of today.
On the other hand, the inclination to scream 'paternalism' when folks from cosmopolitan cultures talk about problems in homogeneous ones that are struggling with problems caused by modernity, I think, is often naive
Problems like the overpopulation that occurs when you introduce modern medicine and the green revolution but don't couple that with family planning cannot simply be fixed by organic cultural isolation.
There's a sense that we talk abut rich v poor or western v exotic or etc but the better comparison is cosmopolitan-global vs homogeneous-traditional. The latter simply cannot compete against the problems of today.
Paternalism: behavior, by a person, organization or state, which limits some person or group's liberty or autonomy for their own good.
I do not see any evidence of this in the grandparent post.
Edit: Also, I'd like to point out this, on the same front page of Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5390420
I do not see any evidence of this in the grandparent post.
Edit: Also, I'd like to point out this, on the same front page of Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5390420
Given differing aptitudes for solving different problems, the comparison might be moot. However let's say an individual is equally competent in both areas, and let's play the devil's advocate for a minute.
No matter how successful you are at creating utopia, there are many more people that have an interest in engineering the failure of both you and your creation, and each one of them is a human that is potentially as capable as yourself, if not more so. They will collectively outlive you, their efforts will be relentless, and the knowledge that they gain in undoing your work will also be passed down to future generations.
With that in mind, the relative worthiness of efforts might not fall hard to the side of solving political problems right at this instant.
No matter how successful you are at creating utopia, there are many more people that have an interest in engineering the failure of both you and your creation, and each one of them is a human that is potentially as capable as yourself, if not more so. They will collectively outlive you, their efforts will be relentless, and the knowledge that they gain in undoing your work will also be passed down to future generations.
With that in mind, the relative worthiness of efforts might not fall hard to the side of solving political problems right at this instant.
I fantasize about doing that sometimes, but usually, you can't get into politics without being a citizen — either due to legislation or because you won't be accepted as a representative by the population, for obvious reasons.
But assuming you can get into politics, you'll still have to deal with an enormous struggle for power (be it elections you have to win or powerful people you have to convince) in order to get into a position to even make any change.
Thus, this endeavour is practically impossible — it's already difficult enough to change something in your fatherland.
AFTER tokenadult's EDIT: Your edit clarifies a lot. But fraternalism is still difficult to achieve: if you are from a different race than the native population, you'll have a hard time being accepted as their representative.
An interesting example for this might be Singapore, where Lee Kuan Yew pushed the country from third to first world in 50 years. Although he is Singaporean, he brought in a lot of foreign knowledge as he had studied abroad. And the same issues with corruption/illegal methods some commenters mention here can be observed: in the early days of his career, he arrested his opponents, the communists, without any legal process to prevent them from jeopardizing his plans. Later, he made some radical decisions, that were not widely accepted by the population, bu that led to better results for the country (for example, he tore down old villages to replace them by high-rise buildings).
But assuming you can get into politics, you'll still have to deal with an enormous struggle for power (be it elections you have to win or powerful people you have to convince) in order to get into a position to even make any change.
Thus, this endeavour is practically impossible — it's already difficult enough to change something in your fatherland.
AFTER tokenadult's EDIT: Your edit clarifies a lot. But fraternalism is still difficult to achieve: if you are from a different race than the native population, you'll have a hard time being accepted as their representative.
An interesting example for this might be Singapore, where Lee Kuan Yew pushed the country from third to first world in 50 years. Although he is Singaporean, he brought in a lot of foreign knowledge as he had studied abroad. And the same issues with corruption/illegal methods some commenters mention here can be observed: in the early days of his career, he arrested his opponents, the communists, without any legal process to prevent them from jeopardizing his plans. Later, he made some radical decisions, that were not widely accepted by the population, bu that led to better results for the country (for example, he tore down old villages to replace them by high-rise buildings).
But you don't need to get into politics directly.
If you create a business that solves a local problem (local to the poor country of choice) good enough, and fairly enough, you can create ripple effects. Maybe not at national levels, but at regional and municipal levels.
Not easy, but not impossible.
(At least I hope so when I got my rose-tinted glasses on.)
If you create a business that solves a local problem (local to the poor country of choice) good enough, and fairly enough, you can create ripple effects. Maybe not at national levels, but at regional and municipal levels.
Not easy, but not impossible.
(At least I hope so when I got my rose-tinted glasses on.)
Corruption. Remember that if you go to one of the 20 poorest or tyrannical countries of the word, you will probably go to one of the 20 more corrupt countries in the word. So while creating a successful business you will be "asked" to share a part of it, and I hope you can keep enough to create the ripple effects.
Alright, that sounds feasible, albeit being on an entirely different scale.
It's probably doable, but not without a whole bag of dirty tricks, and a group of well trained supporters... but you'd end up being like a secret agency manipulating foreign countries' politics, nothing new here, and if you were to succeed you'd give in to the temptation of using your "great benefactor, savior from poverty..." power for more one-sided goals.
If you want to change a foreign country for the better and not make a bloody (literally) mess of it, stay away from politics (ok, bribe who you need to to keep you humanitarian organization afloat if needed) and work to improve education, basic healthcare and economic growth by means of bringing foreign investments to businesses in a poor country or things like that. Any other way to do it and you'll probably end up on "the dark side" sooner or later :)
If you want to change a foreign country for the better and not make a bloody (literally) mess of it, stay away from politics (ok, bribe who you need to to keep you humanitarian organization afloat if needed) and work to improve education, basic healthcare and economic growth by means of bringing foreign investments to businesses in a poor country or things like that. Any other way to do it and you'll probably end up on "the dark side" sooner or later :)
It would be amazing to have an entity, sort of like the US military crossed with the Red Cross, which just went into conflict zones or repressive regimes to provide infrastructure of government (power, water, education, transportation, law enforcement, security for civilians, etc.). Capable of defending itself, but not taking sides other than providing that infrastructure to everyone. Nominally this is the UN's mission in some countries, but it doesn't really do it.
Satellite TV (Al Jazeera and western sitcoms) largely accomplished this for information in the greater Islamic world. Doing the same for non-information goods would require actual infrastructure on the ground, though.
Satellite TV (Al Jazeera and western sitcoms) largely accomplished this for information in the greater Islamic world. Doing the same for non-information goods would require actual infrastructure on the ground, though.
There are very few things that people in power hate more than someone else succeeding at something without consulting them first. I'm afraid you organization would need to be almost all military.
Most of these countries have fairly ineffective militaries, though, so even a lightly armed force could deter them. Blackwater and at least 2 other PMCs in Iraq could hold their own vs. any failed-state force or militia. It wouldn't need to be like the US Army or USAF fielding high-end weapons where a huge tail to tooth ratio came into play.
Do you know any example of a humanitarian foundation contracting services from Blackwater/Academi type PMCs? Sounds like a workable combo that hasn't been tried before. Though you'd have to have the support of the government even if you can defend yourself from guerrillas/militias and thieves, but by simply receiving this support in a messed up country with "alternative governments" fighting for power, you'd end up taking sides, loosing your neutrality and becoming vulnerable to all sorts of bloody acts, even if they are directed against the people you help and not against yourself - imagine you're helping a school and a bunch of guys from a local guerrilla fighting for power show up and take the school children hostages and tell you they'll kill them if you don't pack your gear and leave the area: even if you have the resources to kill the untrained kidnappers and save all children, by doing so you seriously piss up the fraction that sent those guys and open things up to other alike situations that will not all end well. Something like a PMC force would only be usable against thieves / poachers / drug-dealers... any other "defensive" use would be "taking side" and pull you out of the neutrality zone messing up everything.
To actually be able to use a PMC for such situations, you'd need the kind of force that could win a fight/kidnapping situation by using non-lethal force against lethal force, because using lethal force will put you on one side or another and compromise everything. And to be able to reliably win a non-lethal vs. lethal force situation you'd basically need your PMC to be more advanced and well trained than the US military (!!), at least on the non-lethal weaponry and people manipulation parts... and at that point something like the US (or other "big guys" with interest in the region) would perceive you as a potential treat to them, despite your humanitarian mission, bringing up whole new levels of "fun" :)
Sorry for the pessimism, but these is why I don't like touching this kinds of problems, as I can only find an infinite amount of reasons of why things wouldn't work.
To actually be able to use a PMC for such situations, you'd need the kind of force that could win a fight/kidnapping situation by using non-lethal force against lethal force, because using lethal force will put you on one side or another and compromise everything. And to be able to reliably win a non-lethal vs. lethal force situation you'd basically need your PMC to be more advanced and well trained than the US military (!!), at least on the non-lethal weaponry and people manipulation parts... and at that point something like the US (or other "big guys" with interest in the region) would perceive you as a potential treat to them, despite your humanitarian mission, bringing up whole new levels of "fun" :)
Sorry for the pessimism, but these is why I don't like touching this kinds of problems, as I can only find an infinite amount of reasons of why things wouldn't work.
Plenty of NGOs and UN entities hire either local security or external PMCs to provide security. They usually can't afford top end like Blackwater, though.
It would be easier to stick to services like running an airport (eg Mogadishu kept operating...), water, hospitals, power, etc. but another option would be to run "refugee/IDP centers" like the UN allegedly was doing in the Balkans (where they failed spectacularly). If people live inside a camp they are relatively easy to protect.
The point behind lethal force by a PMC is to have overwhelming force. Blackwater had an Air Force, and essentially could call in favors from the CIA and DOD as needed. Outside of the 2004 Fallujah incident, they never were in serious trouble, and after 2004, the USMC basically tore the city apart, largely over the bridge incident.
There would be no way to do this kind of thing without US support (tacit or otherwise) and at least non objection by regional powers, but if you stuck to "help IDPs and execute on international obligations" you would get UN, USAID, etc funding. The issue is that most people in NGOs tend to be bleeding hearts, and also humanities people vs infrastructure people, so thy don't have these capabilities in house; they have to contract them in. The exception are medical groups -- there are huge numbers of great medical facilities run by religious and other charities, and their neutrality is generally respected.
It would be easier to stick to services like running an airport (eg Mogadishu kept operating...), water, hospitals, power, etc. but another option would be to run "refugee/IDP centers" like the UN allegedly was doing in the Balkans (where they failed spectacularly). If people live inside a camp they are relatively easy to protect.
The point behind lethal force by a PMC is to have overwhelming force. Blackwater had an Air Force, and essentially could call in favors from the CIA and DOD as needed. Outside of the 2004 Fallujah incident, they never were in serious trouble, and after 2004, the USMC basically tore the city apart, largely over the bridge incident.
There would be no way to do this kind of thing without US support (tacit or otherwise) and at least non objection by regional powers, but if you stuck to "help IDPs and execute on international obligations" you would get UN, USAID, etc funding. The issue is that most people in NGOs tend to be bleeding hearts, and also humanities people vs infrastructure people, so thy don't have these capabilities in house; they have to contract them in. The exception are medical groups -- there are huge numbers of great medical facilities run by religious and other charities, and their neutrality is generally respected.
I realize this is pretty much irrelevant, but I just wanted to point out that Blackwater has changed its name twice, and is now known as Academi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
Even after they renamed the first time (to Xe), all the guys continued wearing Blackwater caps and shirts. Even the nominally-separate Presidential Airways guys were wearing Blackwater clothing with the bear claw logo :)
yeah, and they've taken up the domain name that I wanted to use for the next world changing cloud-education startup :)
See my edit regarding the "dark side". You are generally right, but there is at least one example that turned out well despite occasionally taking advantage of illicit maneuvers.
As a citizen of a so called third-world country, your post is extremely condescending.
As a citizen of a so called third-world country,
Which country are you a citizen of?
You will recall that I didn't use the term "third world" in the first part of my first comment in this thread, but categorized countries in two other categories, at least one of which could definitely include countries that aren't part of the Third World. My use of the term came after an edit to the comment, in which I wrote, "I've asked before here on Hacker News how many of the participants here have ever even lived in (not just visited, but lived in) a third-world country. Not many have."
your post is extremely condescending.
Could you please explain in detail what part of my post you were reading when you reached that conclusion? You see, I have done what I suggested in my post. I have lived in a country where I wasn't born, where it was nearly impossible for me to gain citizenship, where the language(s) spoken were not my native language, where the climate was different from the climate I knew in childhood, where the cuisine was very different, where the level of wealth (then) was low. In that country, when I lived there, secret police assassins killed not only dissidents in that country, but even dissidents from that country who had settled in the United States to live. The ruling political party owned all but one of the newspapers (in that newspaper, it had just a half share) and all of the television stations, and it tightly controlled radio broadcasting and book publishing and motion picture production.
There was a lot of censorship and internal spying there, but local people told me their stories of their aspirations for freedom. I learned which ideals of the ruling party could be turned to embarrass the ruling party as it spied on me and other foreigners while we discussed what we were learning about life there from our local friends. I spoke there in open public speeches (in the official language of that country, which I was there to learn) about how life in the country could be improved for the common people by actually allowing freedom and subjecting the rule of the ruling party to the discipline of a free press and free and fair elections. Those things happen there now. I still have many friends there. What is condescending about desiring that the common people of every country achieve their dreams?
Which country are you a citizen of?
You will recall that I didn't use the term "third world" in the first part of my first comment in this thread, but categorized countries in two other categories, at least one of which could definitely include countries that aren't part of the Third World. My use of the term came after an edit to the comment, in which I wrote, "I've asked before here on Hacker News how many of the participants here have ever even lived in (not just visited, but lived in) a third-world country. Not many have."
your post is extremely condescending.
Could you please explain in detail what part of my post you were reading when you reached that conclusion? You see, I have done what I suggested in my post. I have lived in a country where I wasn't born, where it was nearly impossible for me to gain citizenship, where the language(s) spoken were not my native language, where the climate was different from the climate I knew in childhood, where the cuisine was very different, where the level of wealth (then) was low. In that country, when I lived there, secret police assassins killed not only dissidents in that country, but even dissidents from that country who had settled in the United States to live. The ruling political party owned all but one of the newspapers (in that newspaper, it had just a half share) and all of the television stations, and it tightly controlled radio broadcasting and book publishing and motion picture production.
There was a lot of censorship and internal spying there, but local people told me their stories of their aspirations for freedom. I learned which ideals of the ruling party could be turned to embarrass the ruling party as it spied on me and other foreigners while we discussed what we were learning about life there from our local friends. I spoke there in open public speeches (in the official language of that country, which I was there to learn) about how life in the country could be improved for the common people by actually allowing freedom and subjecting the rule of the ruling party to the discipline of a free press and free and fair elections. Those things happen there now. I still have many friends there. What is condescending about desiring that the common people of every country achieve their dreams?
I honestly wonder how people define a "third-world country" these days. Cold War's over, guys.
Is China one of the "twenty most tyrannical countries of the world"? If so, there are more than one billion people currently taking on the real adventure of living there.
Yeah, look at how we were greeted as liberators in Iraq! The folks over there sure appreciated us going in to solve all their problems.
Why worry about meaningful change, why work against the dysfunctional, towards peace and sanity, why care about reaching our true potential as intelligent beings on this planet when we can instead fantasize about going to Where no man has gone before ?
[deleted]
If we do not migrate beyond earth, eventually there will be no more humans to help.
> I wonder how many people are willing to take on the real adventure of living in any of the twenty poorest countries in the world, or twenty most tyrannical countries of the world (there is overlap between the two sets) to try to change those from the inside.
That kind of paternalistic nonsense is what got those countries into the terrible shape they're in to begin with. Continuing it isn't going to fix anything.
That kind of paternalistic nonsense is what got those countries into the terrible shape they're in to begin with. Continuing it isn't going to fix anything.
On the one hand, yes.
On the other hand, the inclination to scream 'paternalism' when folks from cosmopolitan cultures talk about problems in homogeneous ones that are struggling with problems caused by modernity, I think, is often naive
Problems like the overpopulation that occurs when you introduce modern medicine and the green revolution but don't couple that with family planning cannot simply be fixed by organic cultural isolation.
There's a sense that we talk abut rich v poor or western v exotic or etc but the better comparison is cosmopolitan-global vs homogeneous-traditional. The latter simply cannot compete against the problems of today.
On the other hand, the inclination to scream 'paternalism' when folks from cosmopolitan cultures talk about problems in homogeneous ones that are struggling with problems caused by modernity, I think, is often naive
Problems like the overpopulation that occurs when you introduce modern medicine and the green revolution but don't couple that with family planning cannot simply be fixed by organic cultural isolation.
There's a sense that we talk abut rich v poor or western v exotic or etc but the better comparison is cosmopolitan-global vs homogeneous-traditional. The latter simply cannot compete against the problems of today.
I think the most likely way to successfully land on Mars and stay there is to allow for frequent trips back and forth. Obviously I think Musk and SpaceX are taking this approach. Ensure complete and rapid rocket re-usability, make engines that take fuel that Mars mostly provides, and ensure a constant stream of supplies, growth, new people. If your colony is growing, and expanding, and there are frequently (every 2 year) opportunities to come back home, many of the psychological issues can be mitigated. Also, you'll be improving your technology as you build and expand, so you'll be able to fix problems and ensure reliability and safety too. It'll be risky at first of course, and for a long while after that. But I doubt it would be much riskier than we're currently living our lives here on Earth.
> But I doubt it would be much riskier than we're currently living our lives here on Earth.
You're probably underestimating the risks associated with humans leaving Earth for any considerable period of time.
Radiation is the first issue. NASA will not plan a mission that exposes astronauts to higher than a 3% risk of exposure-induced death. Their reports from 2010 based on all the studies done up to that point put the number of "safe days" at ~0.5-1 years. That assumes a healthy mid-30s non-smoker during a solar minimum. So just getting to Mars would exceed the safe limits, even if we had a very well radiation-shielded base waiting on the planet.
Multiple years in space and Mars gravity will also have severe impacts on bone density and muscles. You're never going to be able to fly to Mars, spend a few years, and fly back and resume your life on Earth without long-lasting health effects.
You're probably underestimating the risks associated with humans leaving Earth for any considerable period of time.
Radiation is the first issue. NASA will not plan a mission that exposes astronauts to higher than a 3% risk of exposure-induced death. Their reports from 2010 based on all the studies done up to that point put the number of "safe days" at ~0.5-1 years. That assumes a healthy mid-30s non-smoker during a solar minimum. So just getting to Mars would exceed the safe limits, even if we had a very well radiation-shielded base waiting on the planet.
Multiple years in space and Mars gravity will also have severe impacts on bone density and muscles. You're never going to be able to fly to Mars, spend a few years, and fly back and resume your life on Earth without long-lasting health effects.
> So just getting to Mars would exceed the safe limits
This is the problem with your argument that I'm underestimating risks. You're assuming that nobody finds a way to solve this problem or to mitigate the effects of the radiation, and that nobody would be willing to find a way to go even with the health concerns. I know this will be extremely difficult and quite costly, but I think hard work and constant innovation will solve a lot of the specific problems that you pose today.
> Multiple years in space and Mars gravity will also have severe impacts on bone density and muscles. You're never going to be able to fly to Mars, spend a few years, and fly back and resume your life on Earth without long-lasting health effects.
Prove it. Until you do, I disagree. Also, so what if it's true? Hundreds of millions of people on Earth voluntarily partake in long-lasting negative health effects habits. Why can't "living on Mars for a bit" be one of them?
This is the problem with your argument that I'm underestimating risks. You're assuming that nobody finds a way to solve this problem or to mitigate the effects of the radiation, and that nobody would be willing to find a way to go even with the health concerns. I know this will be extremely difficult and quite costly, but I think hard work and constant innovation will solve a lot of the specific problems that you pose today.
> Multiple years in space and Mars gravity will also have severe impacts on bone density and muscles. You're never going to be able to fly to Mars, spend a few years, and fly back and resume your life on Earth without long-lasting health effects.
Prove it. Until you do, I disagree. Also, so what if it's true? Hundreds of millions of people on Earth voluntarily partake in long-lasting negative health effects habits. Why can't "living on Mars for a bit" be one of them?
We have already measured bone loss in low gravity environments. http://weboflife.nasa.gov/currentResearch/currentResearchGen...
Gravity plays an essential role in bone maintenance. You can work this out from first principles if you know anything about biology, or read about NASA's findings.
This has been known for a long time, well before humans ever went to space. For example, HG Wells' First Men on the Moon described the very weak chests/ rib cages of the moon's citizens due to low gravity resulting in very low bone density. When the explorers from earth struck them, their chests crumpled like a beetle might on earth. Wells either learned this from other scientists or worked out the logic himself.
Gravity plays an essential role in bone maintenance. You can work this out from first principles if you know anything about biology, or read about NASA's findings.
This has been known for a long time, well before humans ever went to space. For example, HG Wells' First Men on the Moon described the very weak chests/ rib cages of the moon's citizens due to low gravity resulting in very low bone density. When the explorers from earth struck them, their chests crumpled like a beetle might on earth. Wells either learned this from other scientists or worked out the logic himself.
That's microgravity, or what other people call "zero gravity."
We honestly don't know how much gravity people need to survive. Your talk of people's chests collapsing because you read it in science fiction is just that: science fiction. HG Wells is great but he's not really a good source of science for modern astrophysics.
Odds are, there are many bodily functions that work just fine in a little bit of gravity, and others that scale up as you get more and more gravity.
We really need to get some spinning space stations set up to find this stuff out. Unfortunately, NASA has a really big fetish for "let's spend money on microgravity research" instead of just doing the obvious thing of seeing how 1/6 g or 3/8 g affects people and systems.
We honestly don't know how much gravity people need to survive. Your talk of people's chests collapsing because you read it in science fiction is just that: science fiction. HG Wells is great but he's not really a good source of science for modern astrophysics.
Odds are, there are many bodily functions that work just fine in a little bit of gravity, and others that scale up as you get more and more gravity.
We really need to get some spinning space stations set up to find this stuff out. Unfortunately, NASA has a really big fetish for "let's spend money on microgravity research" instead of just doing the obvious thing of seeing how 1/6 g or 3/8 g affects people and systems.
I was hoping you'd see the Wells item as showing how straightforward and early known is the connection between healthy human bone maintenance and gravity of earth's strength, not science fiction. Certainly the rate of bone loss will be slower in low gravity than in no gravity environments, but it will happen. It must happen to a degree just as surely as missing calcium and other nutrients would harm our bones.
To be fair, It's really hard to make 1/6g or 3/8g environments.
With current technology (both existing and theoretical), I don't think you'd be able to create a rocket capable of returning with healthy people (even just the returning bit is a practical nightmare). Also, most people underestimate just how big the radiation problem is in space, since we have an earth-sized magnet to mostly protect us (you can't just make a second earth and attach it to your spacecraft). The apollo astronauts are really quite lucky to not be exposed. http://sciencefocus.com/blog/how-apollo-astronauts-avoided-d...
The "send people to die on mars" idea isn't about developing the technology to allow travelling back and forth, it is a compromise with todays technology to say "let's go and explore, until we have the technology". So you can't shoot down the argument with "when we have the technology...".
The "send people to die on mars" idea isn't about developing the technology to allow travelling back and forth, it is a compromise with todays technology to say "let's go and explore, until we have the technology". So you can't shoot down the argument with "when we have the technology...".
> Prove it. Until you do, I disagree.
Well I can't personally __prove__ it, but I believe the general belief in the science community of prolonged space-travel is that it will most likely mess you up. Probably in more ways than we've even thought of. I don't think, at least with today's tech, that a human can travel to Mars and back and be perfectly okay.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/space-dangers.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_19158_the-6-weirdest-dangers-...
Well I can't personally __prove__ it, but I believe the general belief in the science community of prolonged space-travel is that it will most likely mess you up. Probably in more ways than we've even thought of. I don't think, at least with today's tech, that a human can travel to Mars and back and be perfectly okay.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/space-dangers.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_19158_the-6-weirdest-dangers-...
A lot, not all, but a lot of those people popped up after Bush 41 said that we were going back to the moon and to Mars. NASA heard it was a JFK mission, going to be completed regardless of cost, and told their project managers to put as many things into the mission critical path so they would get funded. When they returned to Congress with a 30-year $450 Billion plan, it was funded with 0 dollars.
To be fair, we don't know what 3/8 g will to do someone after a year. For all that it's important, though, it's comical that we haven't put some spinning Skylab space stations up to find out.
To be fair, we don't know what 3/8 g will to do someone after a year. For all that it's important, though, it's comical that we haven't put some spinning Skylab space stations up to find out.
With Mars there's also that "step outside without a protective suit, suffocate and freeze to death in few minutes" bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
If you are worried about radiation, a solar minimum is probably the worst time to send someone. Cosmic rays are more prevalent during solar minimums, and shielding against solar flares is non-negotiable anyway.
The "safe limits" have already been exceeded by people on the ISS.
If NASA has decided that we can't send people into space if there is a 3% chance of them getting cancer at some point later in their lives, then NASA has decided that they aren't going to send anyone to Mars, and it's time for us to find someone else who will.
The "safe limits" have already been exceeded by people on the ISS.
If NASA has decided that we can't send people into space if there is a 3% chance of them getting cancer at some point later in their lives, then NASA has decided that they aren't going to send anyone to Mars, and it's time for us to find someone else who will.
There's at least one person who spent over a year in space during one flight, almost two years combined between several flights. And that's not just in Mars gravity, but in total weightlessness. He's alive and seems to be doing fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Polyakov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Polyakov
Relevant:
Upon landing, Polyakov opted not to be carried the few feet between the Soyuz capsule and a nearby lawn chair, instead walking the short distance. In doing so, he wished to prove that humans could be physically capable of working on the surface of Mars after a long-duration transit phase.
That was 18 years ago ...
Upon landing, Polyakov opted not to be carried the few feet between the Soyuz capsule and a nearby lawn chair, instead walking the short distance. In doing so, he wished to prove that humans could be physically capable of working on the surface of Mars after a long-duration transit phase.
That was 18 years ago ...
> You're never
Unless we can develop drugs that trick the body into maintaining the correct muscle and bone density.
Unless we can develop drugs that trick the body into maintaining the correct muscle and bone density.
In the long run, I agree, but I think you could get a 5-10y headstart by doing a simple "one way and ongoing resupply" profile. The risk would be if that kills demand for the "colonization" profile later, but I really don't think that's likely.
Sending some pioneers who are willing to accept far higher risk, first, before a mainstream effort which could support thousands, actually seems like a way to increate demand and lower risk (and thus cost) for the colonization mission. If 5-10 people living on Mars for 5 years ahead of you kills all desire to actually colonize the place in a lasting way, then it probably wasn't worth doing in the first place.
Sending some pioneers who are willing to accept far higher risk, first, before a mainstream effort which could support thousands, actually seems like a way to increate demand and lower risk (and thus cost) for the colonization mission. If 5-10 people living on Mars for 5 years ahead of you kills all desire to actually colonize the place in a lasting way, then it probably wasn't worth doing in the first place.
The thing I'm most worried about is what happens if one of the residents needs medical attention. Mars is going to be a one-way trip and while the pioneers will most probably be young and healthy, they won't stay young and healthy forever.
It is entirely possible to place a doctor within the group and send medical supplies, but it could work only for the simplest medical conditions. I think it would be a long time before it would be possible to perform open heart surgeries on Mars, or even fill a tooth.
It is entirely possible to place a doctor within the group and send medical supplies, but it could work only for the simplest medical conditions. I think it would be a long time before it would be possible to perform open heart surgeries on Mars, or even fill a tooth.
Huh. I'd assume that you'd get top-of-field type people in medicine, science and engineering along for the trip. I'd also assume that you'd get older people, too... brains and experience (and, as they say, getting along with a group) is going to matter more than physical fitness, I would assume. And from what I've seen, most people with technical skills learn social skills much later, if at all.
My worry would not be that I'd get stuck with a bunch of peasants, but that the standards would be so high, with regards to education and useful skills, that I would not qualify for the trip.
If I was trying to pitch myself at the interview, I'd point out all my experience maintaining older equipment with limited resources. (I'm sure they'd point out that nearly all my repair experience is board-level, not component-level, which is the right thing when you have a lot of cheap spares, such as when dealing with older equipment on earth, but completely the wrong thing when you are in an environment where you have to bring or manufacture everything you use.) I'd also point out my years of 24x7 pager experience, (and my experience in knowing where my burn out point is- I will push back rather than work myself to burn-out) Of course, they'd point out that there exist outliers who can work harder and longer than I can without burn-out, and I'm sure a few of them also know how to spot burn-out coming up.
So, yeah; I would assume that if they were taking a credible run at it, they'd get some really good people (including some good medical personnel.)
My worry would not be that I'd get stuck with a bunch of peasants, but that the standards would be so high, with regards to education and useful skills, that I would not qualify for the trip.
If I was trying to pitch myself at the interview, I'd point out all my experience maintaining older equipment with limited resources. (I'm sure they'd point out that nearly all my repair experience is board-level, not component-level, which is the right thing when you have a lot of cheap spares, such as when dealing with older equipment on earth, but completely the wrong thing when you are in an environment where you have to bring or manufacture everything you use.) I'd also point out my years of 24x7 pager experience, (and my experience in knowing where my burn out point is- I will push back rather than work myself to burn-out) Of course, they'd point out that there exist outliers who can work harder and longer than I can without burn-out, and I'm sure a few of them also know how to spot burn-out coming up.
So, yeah; I would assume that if they were taking a credible run at it, they'd get some really good people (including some good medical personnel.)
I think you are right. Medical procedures would likely go back to basics: Bad tooth? Pull it out. Broken leg? Maybe amputate.
However, with the right provisions fairly advanced procedures should be possible to carry out with minimum personnel. For instance, in 1961 a Russian doctor in Antarctica removed his own infected appendix [1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-surgery
However, with the right provisions fairly advanced procedures should be possible to carry out with minimum personnel. For instance, in 1961 a Russian doctor in Antarctica removed his own infected appendix [1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-surgery
Amputate a broken leg? Just how bad do you foresee that injury?
It's not like we can't ship anesthetics up there. It's not like a layman can't set a broken bone, although I dunno if an X-ray machine would be there to see.
It's not like we can't ship anesthetics up there. It's not like a layman can't set a broken bone, although I dunno if an X-ray machine would be there to see.
While I am skeptical of the Mars One project, for many reason which others have covered very well, I would happily die on Mars.
I'm in my early 20's and I have big plans and dreams here on Earth. I would drop them instantly for the chance to go to Mars, one way trip or no.
I'm in my early 20's and I have big plans and dreams here on Earth. I would drop them instantly for the chance to go to Mars, one way trip or no.
I wonder how many of the people who say they are ready to go, imagine what it really is going to be. I think it won't be glorious. It might be exciting at first but if you have the chance to live there more than few months it will turn into rather lonely and hard experience. You won't have the internet or other communications. You won't have your favorite beer, or most probably any beer at all. Chances are you'd say good-bye to sex/love relationships, to your parents and friends forever, to the Earth weather and green grass... You get the idea. I know it sounds romantic and glorious when you are 20 years old or so, but I hope everyone who thinks they are ready to go, really is.
I don't like it. Let's go all the way and make bringing the crew back safely part of the challenge. It will be more rewarding because it's more difficult.
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth."
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things -- not because they are easy; but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills; because that challenge is one that we're willing to accept; one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win -- and the others, too."
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth."
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things -- not because they are easy; but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills; because that challenge is one that we're willing to accept; one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win -- and the others, too."
It's interesting, we used to have to bring people back to do our exploration, but in some ways thanks to high-quality video that need is less and less.
If you think of society as a single entity then the notion of 'bringing people back' doesn't have as much meaning as it used to. We don't need martian resources (other than the space) and anything else is a souvenir. People had to go and come back from the Americas because of the lack of video (no other way to see it) and because we wanted something the Americas had (gold, wood, coal, cotton etc).
We went to the Moon a few times, but it didn't have very much of anything we needed. Also you can pull up a video of what it's like to walk or drive on the moon anytime you want.
While I agree the full return trip is a higher, more noble goal I just don't see the same forces at work that will require regular back and forth trips.
If you think of society as a single entity then the notion of 'bringing people back' doesn't have as much meaning as it used to. We don't need martian resources (other than the space) and anything else is a souvenir. People had to go and come back from the Americas because of the lack of video (no other way to see it) and because we wanted something the Americas had (gold, wood, coal, cotton etc).
We went to the Moon a few times, but it didn't have very much of anything we needed. Also you can pull up a video of what it's like to walk or drive on the moon anytime you want.
While I agree the full return trip is a higher, more noble goal I just don't see the same forces at work that will require regular back and forth trips.
I remember looking at a site that were planning a Mars mission and they expected you to pay in order to go on it. I have no idea why anyone would pay to be stuck on Mars..
Really? You can't image why? The answer is simple and one word: adventure.
You are underestimating the number of people who are interested in both a morally and socially acceptable suicide method and a claim to fame in science.
Mars One did an AMA on reddit nine months ago: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/uta10/iama_founder_of_...
Personally, I remember being most astonished that their team only had one technical person: http://mars-one.com/en/about-mars-one/team
Personally, I remember being most astonished that their team only had one technical person: http://mars-one.com/en/about-mars-one/team
I count three M.Sc.'s?
Where do I apply? I would do this just for being one of the first persons in mars and be recorded in history books.
Unless explorers will be given property of sizable portions of martian land and a number (more than 1!) of back and forth Mars-Earth tickets, this will definitely not attract the kind of valuable and resourceful people that would really be needed to create a self sustaining colony! And you'd also need something like a "diversity Mars Visa lottery" open to anyone so that a colony will not only be formed of "boring, super-fit and super-trained" career space colonists.
...but for all this to work, you'd need good, reliable and "cheap" space propulsion systems, not the current toys. This is where all the work and hype should be, not over the colonization plans and how to grow veggies over there: propulsion, propulsion, propulsion, everything else on 4th, 5th, 6th etc. place.
...but for all this to work, you'd need good, reliable and "cheap" space propulsion systems, not the current toys. This is where all the work and hype should be, not over the colonization plans and how to grow veggies over there: propulsion, propulsion, propulsion, everything else on 4th, 5th, 6th etc. place.
The goal of a colonization effort is never to make the new place more appealing than the old place for the majority of people, or even the median, or even a sizable minority.
You want Mars to appeal enough that you can get dozens or hundreds or people who have both the means and will to do it.
You want Mars to appeal enough that you can get dozens or hundreds or people who have both the means and will to do it.
I think a lot of you are underestimating (what I read so far in comments) how much risk would people be ready to take.
I would totally take this serious, it isn't convenient to go now for me, but in 10 yrs time, or less, I think this would be something I would really like to do. And I wouldn't be bothered by being confined in small space. However, I already can think of ways to expand that space, so this assumptions are not quite correct. I would probably not live super long due to radiation, but I would accept this for chance to go somewhere no-one had gone before.
I am fairly confident that living on Mars would bring significant discoveries.
I would totally take this serious, it isn't convenient to go now for me, but in 10 yrs time, or less, I think this would be something I would really like to do. And I wouldn't be bothered by being confined in small space. However, I already can think of ways to expand that space, so this assumptions are not quite correct. I would probably not live super long due to radiation, but I would accept this for chance to go somewhere no-one had gone before.
I am fairly confident that living on Mars would bring significant discoveries.
I don't get it. What is the point of sitting in a caravan on Mars and waiting to die?
Is the guy proposing this going himself to set an example?
If there is going to be any kind of colony, it needs some means of sustaining life and babies.
Is the guy proposing this going himself to set an example?
If there is going to be any kind of colony, it needs some means of sustaining life and babies.
You wouldn't be waiting to die. You would be the vanguard of a possible independent arm of human civilization. Your work there would be critical to figuring out the viability of colonizing Mars.
You don't just sit there waiting to die.
You go out and build things. We'll ship all the stuff the first people need for several years, but they will need to learn to find their own water, manufacture plastics, grow food, and all that stuff.
You go out and build things. We'll ship all the stuff the first people need for several years, but they will need to learn to find their own water, manufacture plastics, grow food, and all that stuff.
[deleted]
I'd be perfectly willing to die on Mars and (being one of the older one here), I'd say it's more likely that I am dead before anyone actually gets there. (Note that my family might not like me leaving them behind on Earth).
As an aside, it's a shame that the artist's rendition reminds me of a trailer park in a Florida retirement "encampment". I have no intention of retiring somewhere that's populated by snow-birds (well ... if I actually retire. Retirement sounds terribly boring).
As an aside, it's a shame that the artist's rendition reminds me of a trailer park in a Florida retirement "encampment". I have no intention of retiring somewhere that's populated by snow-birds (well ... if I actually retire. Retirement sounds terribly boring).
I see that Mars One will be using the SpaceX vehicles. I wonder if Elon Musk will be fine with this, because as far as I see it, it is actually undermining the competitive spirit of the race for Mars which is more about building the better technology than actually setting the foot there first just to get your name on the history books. For someone as devoted to offering real technological innovation, as Elon Musk is, it would probably smack a bit of cheating.
The obstacle of going to Mars has long since been a problem of desire and not technology. Obviously better radiation shielding, drugs that reduce the negative effects of zero-g, nuclear propulsion, and other technologies would reduce the risk of failure but at the end of the day going to Mars is a massive engineering and logistics problem.
A good analogy (I think) would be the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Sure it is trivial to build today with our technology, as (I hope) it will be trivial to travel to Mars in the distant future, but the reason its a great wonder of the world is because, despite a lack of modern technology, it was built as a national engineering project that spanned decades. Just like a mission to Mars, it was a daunting task (one that required a generation or two of slaves perhaps) that was pulled off through pure grit.
A good analogy (I think) would be the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Sure it is trivial to build today with our technology, as (I hope) it will be trivial to travel to Mars in the distant future, but the reason its a great wonder of the world is because, despite a lack of modern technology, it was built as a national engineering project that spanned decades. Just like a mission to Mars, it was a daunting task (one that required a generation or two of slaves perhaps) that was pulled off through pure grit.
Musk himself said he would like to die on Mars: "“I will go if I can be assured that SpaceX would go on without me . . . I've said I want to die on Mars, just not on impact.” (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/03/elon-musk-die...)
Man. Think of the latency. 8 light minutes. We'd need to bring back uucp, read content offline. Caching would be essential.
Heh. It sounds like a lot of fun, really. I mean, in 2022, I'll be 42; I mean, I'd need more information, (and I might be disqualified just for not being immediately ready to jump, but eh.) but it does sound like an incredible way to spend the second half of my life, even if it ends up making that second half, uh, significantly shorter.
Heh. It sounds like a lot of fun, really. I mean, in 2022, I'll be 42; I mean, I'd need more information, (and I might be disqualified just for not being immediately ready to jump, but eh.) but it does sound like an incredible way to spend the second half of my life, even if it ends up making that second half, uh, significantly shorter.
The big question is,
Is this my only chance to get to Mars?
Or am I young enough to get artificially longer life, to get round trip to mars? Or do I die before it is possible?
Can I live on Mars long enough for round trips to get frequent? Is science advanced enough to keep me live after getting back(c'mon, I am piece of history then, first ones on Mars, of course they are going to keep me alive if they can)?
What are you betting on?
What are you betting on?
Aren't there better ways to generate ad dollars besides sending people on a suicide mission to Mars?
... food ... water? Otherwise your life (before you die) would be rather short ...
They're not sending people to sit in the corner and wait until they die.
It's about building a colony. Regular supply missions and growing stuff on Mars would be part of the plan.
It's about building a colony. Regular supply missions and growing stuff on Mars would be part of the plan.
Before talking about colonizing Mars, why not colonizing other areas of Earth?
See the Sahara for example, or even your own deserts in US. Closer, more clement climate and no less resources.
Why colonize a far away deserts when we have enough on Earth?
See the Sahara for example, or even your own deserts in US. Closer, more clement climate and no less resources.
Why colonize a far away deserts when we have enough on Earth?
Because we don't want to.
Because those areas are owned by other people, who probably don't want you taking over their land?
Because any catastrophe that would destroy earth probably would destroy your desert too?
Because any catastrophe that would destroy earth probably would destroy your desert too?
Is the chap proposing this willing to go off there himself?
UNANSWERED QUESTION: why mars, what is there that we need? What would I be doing that a robot can't do? Why would I sacrifice my life for a gimmick?
Space colonization is an unmitigated Good Thing for the indefinite future, assuming you're okay with the human species existing after our sun explodes.
Mars is the first step for dealing with that problem.
Mars is the first step for dealing with that problem.
Worrying about humans surviving after the sun explodes is not a motivation for anything. We have only existed for moment in time relative to the age of the sun, and any number of things could lead to our extinction in another relative moment's time, such that our entire existence on a solar lifetime calendar would not even be noticed.
Did you know that we do more than one thing at a time? It is a strange and abnormal thing, but it is true.
Good plot for a movie.
I wonder if we will ever have a day on HN without talking about death. Or if someone could write a filtering app.
Have they resolved the important psychological issue of there being no marijuana on Mars yet?
They never saw their homeland or most of their friends or relatives ever again.
They must have known that was the way it was going to be. I often wonder how they felt about it.