Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Gaishan)
    Of course, but at the time China was dependent on its local agriculture which was not as productive. I wasn't suggesting that there is any forseeably problem feeding people, I just disputed your point about resources not being an issue with a growing population.

    I hate the smilee because it's so rude. I'm not criticising you in particular for using it. How would you feel if you were having a debate with someone and they rolled their eyes deliberately so that you could see them do it or stuck their middle finger up at you. That's what I think the smilee does.
    1) I just hope India doesn't go the route of the US or Britain - a huge economy that's not especially productive and is based on consumer demand, because by the looks of it, to sustain 1.8b people it will have to import a lot of produce (and thus what it exports would have to be very valuable or there must be tonnes of it, and India doesn't look set to become a manufacturing powerhouse!). I guess there's always the chance it could become a trading hub but that requires a lot of work and is difficult to pull off.
    2) :rolleyes: Is an awesome smiley :p:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)

    Well America got to do the moon first.
    if you believe they did and weren't faked.

    anyway yes i agree competition is good, it will help us colonise new worlds and enslave the first poor buggers we come across
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hope Spielberg makes a film about the moon. If so it could have an awesome moon landing scene, with machineguns and explosions and that guy from apollo 13.. Tom Hanks ! can't wait
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    I call BS. You seem to think the soviets didn't care how many people died.

    Well America got to do the moon first.

    And i am willing to bet they'll get to mars first. How is china going tyo get to mars if they haven't even gone to the moon?

    Also, competition is good in normal things, but first of all, this isn't a race anymore, secondly, $100bn and 1000 scientists are better than 10 groups of $10bn and 100 scientists doing the same thing.
    The Soviets didn't, this was the Soviet Union we are talking of here, personal safety was second to the success of the state.

    As for China, instead of going off on a totally unsubstantiated rant actually read up about the Chinese space program first, currently they have the moon slated by 2024 at the latest and Mars between 2030-40. As the Chinese economy continues to grow larger and larger during this timeperiod it'll be able to invest more and more into the program, thus bringing those dates forwards. As the Chinese invest more into their space program and begin to make real progress, the Americans will react and make more of an effort, thus spurring the Chinese on even further thus creating the Second Space Race which you correctly stated doesn't exist now but will exist in 10 to 20 years time.

    As for your comment about pooling resources, big budgets don't always result in any kind of success, plus when theres no competition, you deprive the sector of much of it's innovative thinking and it's dynamism, thus it becomes lethargic and takes longer to achieve anything even with greater budgets.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    America will get there first! They're more advanced than people think. China and India aren't even close.

    I don't know why Europe and America just don't work together loads more, they're pretty level headed countries. I think Russia is slowly getting there.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Because the Germans and French have got their whole 'let create a federal europe' as a counterweight to American influence thing going on. I have no doubt the British would quite happily cooperate with NASA and the Americans but the French and Germans would never have it, they want their own space program even if it's hideously behind NASA and the chinese.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Maybe initialy only the rich will go as tourists, but after that poorer people are possibly the most likely to move. Rich people have what they want on earth, the pioneer volunteers are likely to be from a poorer upbringing.

    so you think they'll spend billions on it only to spend people there for free?

    I am sure there are enough rich people that would want to live there.

    by the way you just can't go there, it will take another 50 years after we get there to make it habitable.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Why would rich people want to live on a barren world with a year nearly twice as long as ours and in an environment where the initial human pioneers would be restricted to martian biodomes or whatever ?

    History has shown us that colonists always come from the lowest parts of society or those that are being actively persecuted, the rich have no need to move and make a new life as they have a good life already. If we live to 100 we might just touch upon the beginnings of martian bases if people get serious about colonising the planet but we'll never live long enough to see it terraformed, we're talking the year 3,000 before it'd even be habitable and a hell of a lot of political will and cash spent to achieve such a goal.

    Dayne was pretty much spot on, initially rich tourists might visit just to be able to say they've been to Mars but if it's ever colonised, it'll be poor people that probably sign up for government funded schemes, providing a set time of labour for the government in exchange for their transit to Mars. It's how the initial colonisation of America went, poor people went over as indentured servants to companies or rich land owners, worked seven years and then got set free and given their own plot of land from which to work. Of course with the advent of slavery, indentured servants quickly become a thing of the past but the theory stays the same.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Bateman)
    so you think they'll spend billions on it only to spend people there for free?

    I am sure there are enough rich people that would want to live there.

    by the way you just can't go there, it will take another 50 years after we get there to make it habitable.
    Im not so naive as to think its an immediate plan. I think after the first few waves have gone as tourists it will be the poorer who go. As you say, at first it would be a difficult life. What rich person would want that? Sure there will be a few, but not enough to run a colony. Instead they will offer the poorer people a free trip and land when there. They would do the hard work, setting up the colony. Only then would people with more wealth move there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Im not so naive as to think its an immediate plan. I think after the first few waves have gone as tourists it will be the poorer who go. As you say, at first it would be a difficult life. What rich person would want that? Sure there will be a few, but not enough to run a colony. Instead they will offer the poorer people a free trip and land when there. They would do the hard work, setting up the colony. Only then would people with more wealth move there.

    It wouldn't be a difficult life. Once they make it habitable, i am sure they will make it like Dubai.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder how the land of Mars will be shared out? Will it be claimed, or distributed relative to the size of the countries' population?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Bateman)
    It wouldn't be a difficult life. Once they make it habitable, i am sure they will make it like Dubai.
    Im sure they will. Im talking about while they make it habitable. The first long term wave will most likely be from the poorest nations.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Im sure they will. Im talking about while they make it habitable. The first long term wave will most likely be from the poorest nations.

    They won't let people go there whilst they're making it habitable! Is this so hard to understand?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    I wonder how the land of Mars will be shared out? Will it be claimed, or distributed relative to the size of the countries' population?
    Whoever gets there first claims the whole lot pretty much.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    Whoever gets there first claims the whole lot pretty much.
    Oh noes!

    Let's get a prison on Mars, and watch them try to escape. :cool:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Bateman)
    They won't let people go there whilst they're making it habitable! Is this so hard to understand?
    Please stop treating me like an idiot. They will need a first wave of pioneers first. It would be too expensive to take everything there from earth, even if we had a lunar base (which would cost even more as the moon has few usefull matterials). Instead they will take bare minimum and some volenteer pioneers to get the place running. This first wave will find life there hard, and will be from poorer nations.

    Aside from all that, for a long term colony they will need poorer people. This is to do the work that many rich people is bellow them. Without them the colony could not survive.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Please stop treating me like an idiot. They will need a first wave of pioneers first. It would be too expensive to take everything there from earth, even if we had a lunar base (which would cost even more as the moon has few usefull matterials). Instead they will take bare minimum and some volenteer pioneers to get the place running. This first wave will find life there hard, and will be from poorer nations.

    Aside from all that, for a long term colony they will need poorer people. This is to do the work that many rich people is bellow them. Without them the colony could not survive.

    No they will not FFS! They will take the best engineers, skilled builders, scientists and doctors etc. Then once they have made it habitable, they will take those that can afford to go.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Bateman)
    No they will not FFS! They will take the best engineers, skilled builders, scientists and doctors etc. Then once they have made it habitable, they will take those that can afford to go.
    So you envision it as a society without poor people? It would fail. There would be too many jobs for the people willing to go. Taking poorer people to do the work would also be much cheaper. They would work harder in much worse conditions for less pay. If they got a part of the colony in return for their work they would work very hard. Of course there would be managers to make sure they did everything right, but they would be kept in relative luxury because of the pioneers doing the hard work.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    No they will not FFS! They will take the best engineers, skilled builders, scientists and doctors etc. Then once they have made it habitable, they will take those that can afford to go.
    Wouldn't we need them back on Earth? look back at history, look at how North America was colonised by the French and the English and that'll give you your answers.

    Initial base building and terraforming would be done by a scientific elite, but actual colonisation of the planet once it was terraformed would be undertaken by the poor overflow of planet Earth, can you really imagine scientists living out on the frontier eking out a living and building everything from scratch, me thinks not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    So you envision it as a society without poor people? It would fail. There would be too many jobs for the people willing to go. Taking poorer people to do the work would also be much cheaper. They would work harder in much worse conditions for less pay. If they got a part of the colony in return for their work they would work very hard. Of course there would be managers to make sure they did everything right, but they would be kept in relative luxury because of the pioneers doing the hard work.

    No one is talking about men actually living there, not a lot anyway. The only people living there will be people searching for resources/ extracting resources.

    We need skilled people, do you think they're going to send a poor indian to design a building?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.