I wish to quibble with a point in the BBC's write-up of the TV series Mars:
Colonising Mars would provide humankind with a lifeboat, ensuring our species' survival if some giant catastrophe were to befall civilisation - let's say an asteroid strike, or an ecological breakdown.
Realistically, there is no circumstance that could make Mars a more attractive destination than Earth to perpetuate mankind. A "lifeboat" biodome on Earth has the advantage in every aspect. To name a few:
- Atmospheric pressure: Even if Earth's atmosphere turned poisonous, it would be no less deadly than the near lack of atmosphere on Mars. An Earth biodome wouldn't have to solve the challenge of containing a pressurized system.
- Known resources of organic life and minerals: There is no native life on Mars, nor oil for power generation or plastics. Nor is it Earth's equal in mineral diversity. All these resources would have to be substituted.
- Proximity: Until costs for space travel are lowered from the billions of dollars to "mere" millions, simply getting to Mars is an enormous expense, considering all that you have to bring with you. Such an expense, as well as those of time and effort in planning the expedition, are not required to sustain life in a biodome on Earth.
If we're talking strictly in the near-term, before space travel is thoroughly commercialized, I think the only reason man would seriously settle Mars would be to flee the global reach of oppressors. Imagine the Republic of China fleeing to Taiwan in 1949, but on a larger (yet, smaller) scale. If circumstances materialized to that extent, identifiable people groups such as nations or religious sects would already be organized for their self-defense. Only the most affluent and learned groups would attempt an extraterrestrial colonization, with Mars being preferred over the Moon.
Ron Howard is producer of the Mars TV series, and he had some comments that I wish to analyze.
I wasn't sure I believed in the idea of going to Mars. I knew I believed in the idea of space exploration… and any show that advocated that was making a statement that was healthy and positive for human beings - to inspire their imaginations to look outward.
But as I have gone through the process of working on the show and interviewing some of the big thinkers, I now really do believe in it strategically - I don't mean that from a military standpoint, I mean it from the point of the ongoing evolution of the human species… I not only believe it's viable, I'm a big supporter.
This idea of mankind evolving--not just physically but in the way individuals relate and rely on each other--is a fun idea to play with. It sets up a conflict of visions--whither should mankind evolve?--that all readers can be stimulated by because it's fundamental to the human condition. Given current political trends, I think people are increasingly conscious of it as well.
In my book Tendrils to the Moon, the antagonist is taken with the idea of mankind maturing beyond what he sees as its fatal flaws, namely nationalism and religion, which gave rise to the conflict that killed his parents. That the antagonist has that ideology is not an indictment of the ideology, but it gives him a motivation that the reader can relate to.
I tried to write a book back in 2011, a murder mystery/thriller set in an underground colony on Mars that had an almost Communist vision of man. The lack of capitalist/liberal alternatives, the necessity for communal living (contra individual and nuclear family), and the lack of privacy in such dense quarters all could contribute to a Communism organization of society prevailing, at least for a time. The book failed because of a convoluted plot that was impossible to execute, but I wouldn't mind returning to that idea someday.
Let me know what you think in the comment section below! I'll reply to you as soon as I can. I invite you to read the first three chapters of Tendrils to the Moon for free, and see if the last 9 chapters are worth your time. The paperback version is on sale at Amazon for $8.99. The ebook is only 99 cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment