Question If/when we colonise another planet, who governs it?

[NTpspE]

Hi There,

I was just wondering, if we for example settled Mars, and started a colonization effort, and everything was successful, who would 'own' it?

Would it be on a first-come first-served basis? So if America landed and settled then America would have governing rule?
Would it be that each country is assigned a proportional area similar to their government's effective area on earth, but scaled for the size of Mars?
Or would a new government be set up for the whole of Mars as such?
Maybe by that time we will already have a unified government on earth?

Or perhaps (I wish) it will be down to each individual person to live their lives how they wish and where they wish, within logical reason?

I'm mainly interested in whether there are already plans for this kind of thing, or everyone else's input.

Kind Regards,
NT

PS. Sorry if this is in the wrong thread, I was thinking it might be best starting it in the 'basement' but it's not exactly a political argument or such, and I don't think any offence can come from it, let me know (or a mod move it if necessary).

 

[SiberianTiger]

Me.

 

[jedidia]

Who owns earth?

Planets are big. So technically, it is no problem for there to be several colonies under different governments. Realistically, this is economicaly unpracticle. I don't think any one single nation could put a colony on Mars all by itself, let alone several nations a colony each. So it would probably be an international effort, and governed by some special UN gremium or somesuch. If nationalistic tensions from earth ever reach the colony and divides the population and they start about arguing which nation should govern it, you can write it off. If there are not many colonists, the colony can't survive with divided resources. If the colony is large enough to be sustainable even when you divide it into several, it is also large enough to wage some kind of warfare, but probably not large enough to survive one.

Thus, international gremium at first, self-governed if it becomes self-sufficient, or gone.

 

[Pioneer]

It is highly unlikely that we will have a unified gov't on our planet by the time people visit and colonize mars.

 

[jonmatifa]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage_of_mankind"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage_of_mankind[/ame]

Things like the Outer Space Treaty have at least set the intention that no government can make claims like that. Long before a permanent colony is likely to exist on another body such as the Moon or Mars, there would be research stations similar to the ISS or Antartica, which are primarily governed by scientific interests.

When a permanent colony does exist on another body, there will be a need for governance, whether its autonomous, or overseen by an earth-bound government or other organization (perhaps international cooperation). This relationship will most likely be determined by the financial investment made (if the US for example invests 500 billion dollars building a colony, the government is going to stake a claim), as well as the degree of dependence the colony has from earth. If the colony can be largely self sufficient, they can be (much more) autonomous.

 

[palebluevoice]

When it doubt, basement. Anyways...I imagine first come first serve, but nothing like one country controlling the whole planet. Just like the colonization of America, there were sections of land claimed by England, France and Spain; of course, corporations could just as easily claim land, and governance comes from whoever has the power; so in this case, the CEO, board of directors, shareholders, etc.

Would it be that each country is assigned a proportional area similar to their government's effective area on earth, but scaled for the size of Mars?

I doubt it; something this complicated is going to be a nightmare to implement; and who is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on giving away land to countries that didn't earn it?(of course, there's the ISS, so I could be wrong). I don't think that zimbabwe will have a section on mars; particulary considering how such land would be divided. Do they get any pick they want? Who goes second in line? Random? Its a big nightmare.

Or perhaps (I wish) it will be down to each individual person to live their lives how they wish and where they wish, within logical reason?

This is a good basis, but it gets more complicated. On the ISS, the "government" is a fascist communism. You have a clipboard that says what time you work, what time you eat, what time you exercise and what time you go to bed; you're equipment and supplies are paid for and you take based on need/what you're authorized to take. An initial colony to mars would be this way as well; it's not a mission for fun, it's going to be obscenely expensive and there's science to do, domes to setup, and equipment to maintain.

Now, I assume you're talking about past all this, when we start selling tickets to Mars. There's going to be taxes, and there's going to have to be much stricter environmental regulations than on earth; the same kind you would expect in a scientific laboratory. Rationing is a necessity, and there's going to be bathroom, breeding, and waste management rules; all this has to be enforced. Until the economy is running white hot.

Or would a new government be set up for the whole of Mars as such?
Maybe by that time we will already have a unified government on earth?

Hopefully it won't take that long to colonize mars. There are extremely huge cultural differences between countries; that's fine, just have a small, as libertarian as possible government(with the exception of environmental concerns), but Saudi Arabia won't bite if women are allowed to shorts and tank tops in public; individual counties want to regulate things, and perhaps they're right; an oil drilling town in alaska might need to make some tight regulations, but there's a lot of subjectivity there, and subjectivity is the breeding ground for abuse.

If we're talking realistic, century from now science-fiction, it's best to keep it as simple as possible; leave the wild stuff for a biodome space station around proxima centauri.

Still, this is a good topic and I'm sure interesting discussion will come of it.

 

[Ghostrider]

The Outer Space Treaty pretty much killed the profitability of off-world colonies for good. Of course, the moment the land-grab starts, the heavy players will declare the treaty null and void as far as they're concerned (treaties are only valid as long as the most powerful players see them as useful).

Once colonization is advanced enough and the colonies are self-sufficient, of course, they will declare independence (if they're smart) and then things will become funny & interesting.

 

[NTpspE]

I was thinking the same thing about the Outer Space Treaty, as soon as someone decides they want to do things their way, it'll end up null, and then they won't be limited by it.

I don't really think there's any possible solution to this to be honest, it seems like it's going to be a big free-for-all land grab and we'll end up with Mars War I or something :L

 

[TMac3000]

who is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on giving away land to countries that didn't earn it?

Barack Obama:lol:

 

[palebluevoice]

I was thinking the same thing about the Outer Space Treaty, as soon as someone decides they want to do things their way, it'll end up null, and then they won't be limited by it.

I don't really think there's any possible solution to this to be honest, it seems like it's going to be a big free-for-all land grab and we'll end up with Mars War I or something :L

I don't think there will be a war on mars; wars happened/happen when A.Countries are surrounded by other countries and want to increase their power by taking over another country
B.When a spot of land holds a specific resource the instigating faction(s) want(oil/gold/farmland/holy land/Jews)

You don't really have these problems on Mars. There aren't any small areas on Mars that are substantially more valuable than the others, and it's not like America where everyone has to land on the coast and it's harder to colonize farther parts. It's a big mars, and the delta-V to land anywhere on the planet is relatively insignificant. The only incentive for war is to steal another faction's equipment; and something like that is very likely to put someone on the wrong side of a world war(plus obscene economic sanctions and extreme political unrest). The problem with science fiction involving space wars is, just as crime rates are lower in wealthier countries, the kind of wealth that would arise from the science and technology of a species capable of extraterrestrial colonization, combined with the implications of a global economy and other superpowers, makes war very, very unprofitable. Why bring a tank to mars when you can bring a mining rig?

 

[T.Neo]

The Outer Space Treaty pretty much killed the profitability of off-world colonies for good.

Due to the nature of resources available on planetary bodies and the cost of spaceflight, I doubt there was much profitability present for OST to kill.

 

[Hielor]

Why bring a tank to mars when you can bring a mining rig?

Why bring a mining rig when you can bring a handful of guns and steal someone else's mining rig?

 

[FADEC]

China.

While people will remember...

 

[Codz]

China.

Not that crap again. At around one manned launch every couple years, they aren't exactly a big competiter in manned spaceflight.

While people will remember...

NASA Ending Manned Space Flights Indefinitely - YouTube

I felt embarressed just watching that load of garbage. Why don't news companies take the smallest amount of time to research their stories? If they had, they'd have known that CCDev only extends to the ISS and not all of manned spaceflight.

 

[n72.75]

Ideally, they would be self governed or at a minimum home-rule.

 

[palebluevoice]

Why bring a mining rig when you can bring a handful of guns and steal someone else's mining rig?

Because a mining rig is a mining rig and, well, I hate to reference video games, but if you've ever played Dead Space...lets just say things designed to bust through rocks are potent against flesh and bones.

Ehh; but that is a stupid example, so let me get reeled back in. If there is any real concern of being raided, all you have to do is pack a couple of guns of your own. In the event someone were to steal a mining rig; what profit would there be? If they have any earth presence, it's going to be hell for "Houston", and you can bet they'll be facing a fleet of AA guns, interceptors; the whole nine yards when they get to re-entry. Even if they manage to pull it off; they'll have another colony ship coming a few months later to take back what was stolen.

You would NEED some serious firepower to hold a position on Mars; i.e. a tank.

Not that crap again. At around one manned launch every couple years, they aren't exactly a big competiter in manned spaceflight.



I felt embarressed just watching that load of garbage. Why don't news companies take the smallest amount of time to research their stories? If they had, they'd have known that CCDev only extends to the ISS and not all of manned spaceflight.

Ughhh...I stopped watching/boycotted TV after their (lack of)coverage of SOPA. Why would anyone listen to that dull, uniformed mouthpiece for anything is beyond me. If I want efficient news, I'll go on the internet. If I want to relaxingly take in news, I'll read a newspaper. TV? If I want to sit through 15 minutes of commercials that air thousands of times before they're replaced, many of which implant horribly annoying jingles or worse, ruin good songs(Keocera has butchered Beethoven by being cheapskates). How was the Olympics? I have no idea because those greedy jerks didn't allow any of it to be posted online. I would have gladly paid money to watch it online; oh, but no, you have to watch it through the ruthless overlords known as NBC. If the Olympics are an international event, then so is a Madonna concert.

 

[jedidia]

You would NEED some serious firepower to hold a position on Mars; i.e. a tank.

Not only that. If you can't take on a nation on earth, you don't provoke war. Hijacking whatever on another planet that belongs to another nations is an act of war back here on earth. You can't keep these things separate. If your nation can't take on the rig owner back home, you better not think about stealing it.

Even if they wouldn't be strictly associated, whichever nations are funding their presence will get the heat. Even if the colony is self sufficient and self governed there would probably still be some fallout on earth based on ethnicities, if the groups weren't completely heterogenous.

 

[Ghostrider]

Because a mining rig is a mining rig and, well, I hate to reference video games, but if you've ever played Dead Space...lets just say things designed to bust through rocks are potent against flesh and bones.

Unfortunately they also tend to be unwieldy, useful mainly in melee situations, and you have a ton of safety features to disable.

My bet is on the off-world Sports Club with its trap-shooting shotguns, its bows and arrows for archery competitions and assorted fencing sabres, swords and foils. You know, the Monty Python would have a field day with this.

 

[APDAF]

Mega-Corporations unfortunately.

 

[Ghostrider]

Well, since nation-states wouldn't probably want the diplomatic fall-out, we'll have Mercs. IN SPACE! Why does this sound familiar?