Making colonization attractive?

[assault]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

My guess would be that colonies would begin as outposts, where people would go to live and work for a while and then move on. After a while, assuming that there are appropriate facilities and appropriate work for them, they might start settling down on a long term basis.

 

The real change over point would be when people start quitting their jobs or retiring, and not having to leave.

 

These outposts would necessarily need to be either economically profitable or scientifically valuable enough for their massive costs to be subsidised. The latter seem much less likely to grow into full colonies, but I suppose it could happen.

 

Utopian and penal colonies, and similar neat story settings probably won't happen. The economics wouldn't work. You might, however, get some exercises in "pyramid building", where governments or corporations engage in massive ill-conceived prestige ventures, which would either end up failing, or needing to be massively subsidised.

 

Earth is the only place in the universe for which human life is adapted. That means that even Earthlike worlds like Mars are incredibly hostile environments. Realistically, colonisation is difficult, and quite possibly irrational.

 

None of this should stop you in an SF game. After all, as GM, you have complete control of the economics, the technology and even the laws of physics. That means that after you decide what you want your setting to be like, you can adjust the universe to match.

 

I doubt I would ever have the energy to design and use the setting, but one of the more interesting solutions to all this was that used by Iain Banks in his Culture novels: http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm

[Sundog]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

All you need is the promise of a new life.

 

People will go. Those who don't fit in. Those who have failed once and want a new start. Those who want their children to have a better chance than they got. The free-spirits. The free-thinkers. Those with poetry in their souls, those for whom there is nothing else left.

 

They won't be the people you choose - NASA would have a heart attack. They'll be the people who choose themselves. Give them a way to get there, a capacity to earn a living, and some hope, and watch them break down the barriers to grasp the chance.

[McCoy]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

Utopian and penal colonies' date=' and similar neat story settings probably won't happen. The economics wouldn't work. [/quote']

I doubt that they will ever be common, but I can see a few happening. Take the Mormon migration that led to the founding of Salt Lake City as a model. I can see the RCC, LDS, and maybe a Saudi-funded Islamic sect all going where they can set up a society free from "infidels."

 

Doubt that the Tibetians will ever be able to afford to launch such a colony mission, in the future some other minorities may claim persicution, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, and apply to an internation agency for their own colony on that basis.

[Insaniac99]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

without reading everyone elses posts what about this: if you give up your life at home to colonize another planet, then you are provided with I nice huge plot of land, a decent house i a bio-dome, and the basic equipment and transportation to get there.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

But how many condos are there at the top of Everest?

 

 

And that sums up the reason that I personally would jump at the chance to settle in space:

 

the same reason I've made every relocation I've ever made:

 

People. There are just too cussed many of them within eye and ear shot, and the numbers are swelling every day. Maybe it's my upbringing, I just can't help but feel that a population density of more than one person for ten acres is too cussed high.

[Rapier]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

I guess it depends a lot on your setting.

 

- If the earth is extremely overcrowded (eg downtown Tokyo all over the world) people would want to have some 'elbow room.'

 

- A large fraction of scientist types would do it for the chance to learn.

 

- A large fraction of the adrenaline-junkies would do it for the challenge and the rush.

 

- A large fraction of the ne'er-do-wells would do it to get out where the authorities don't know them.

 

- A large fraction of the oppressed would do it for freedom.

 

- Maybe the government offers incentives (no income taxes?).

 

- Maybe they work for a corporation that wants to start a colony and offeres them a good deal.

 

- Certain working-man types (eg miners, construction workers) would do it for the challenge/money/experience/etc.

 

- A certain fraction of the religious would do it to be able to found the "perfect society." I should probably include the social evolutionaries in with the "religious," but you get the idea.

 

There are tons of reasons to settle a colony. If you build it, they will come.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

Doubt that the Tibetians will ever be able to afford to launch such a colony mission, in the future some other minorities may claim persicution, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, and apply to an internation agency for their own colony on that basis.

 

Along similar lines, I could see Israel saying "screw this sh*t", pulling up stakes, and heading for the moon. Although Jerusalem might be a sticking point...

[assault]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

I doubt that they will ever be common' date=' but I can see a few happening. Take the Mormon migration that led to the founding of Salt Lake City as a model.[/quote']

 

There is a massive difference between colonisation on Earth and colonisation on other worlds. Earth is friendly. You can go almost anywhere, plant crops, install some rather basic infrastructure (water, if need be), and there you go.

 

Other worlds aren't like that, at least in the real world. OK, we don't know much about worlds outside the solar system, but even the most Earthlike extra-solar world is going to be a lot less friendly than Earth. The idea of finding a place that humans can just plop down on and settle in is, unfortunately, probably pure Space Opera.

 

Of course there is nothing wrong with Space Opera, and, in fact, blithely ignoring inconvenient realism is pretty much par for the course for most games. We should note the whole FTL thing as a key tweak.

 

The best "realistic" way to create a "new Earth" would probably to create one through a massive terraforming process. But that takes time. While you could theoretically destabilise the chemistry of an entire planet in a fairly short period, it would take a while for it to settle down enough for it to be something you would want to live on. You would be, after all, altering the chemical composition of the rocks themselves!

 

There are theories about how Mars could be terraformed in a comparatively short period of time. A lot of these seem distinctly on the crackpot side. But you could, I suppose, declare them to be workable (and economically sane).

 

But a terraformed world would not be an "alien" world in the Space Opera sense. The fauna and flora, in particular, would essentially be terrestrial species, perhaps with some degree of genetic modification. They wouldn't be "alien".

 

It's all a bit of a bummer, isn't it? But that's OK, it's fine to ignore all this stuff. I know I do when I play SF games.

 

There is an NGD subtext to all of this that I won't go into, involving the ideological aspects of some of the comments here and their strained relationship to reality.

 

To be blunt, though, if we really wanted a realistic SF game, it would be set on Earth, or on a handful of rather small outposts. Or we could get away with setting it on Mars a thousand or so years in the future. But then we would be making wild guesses as to what human society would be like. It certainly wouldn't look like 19th century Utah!

[McCoy]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

There is a massive difference between colonisation on Earth and colonisation on other worlds. Earth is friendly.

And there is the unstated assumption that any colony will be another planet.

 

Unless FTL is possible, I don't think we're going to see a human settlement with a shirtsleeve enviroment away from Earth for several hunded, if not thousand, years.

 

HOWEVER, IMHO putting people in a self-sufficent O'Neil habatat would qualify as colonization. Couple hundred years from now we'll have several in the Belt, maybe a few in the Oort Cloud.

 

Also, as we know for certain of ONE life bearing planet, it is impossible that we can predict what others will be like. It is attempting to draw a curve from a single point. I will conceed that you are probably right, any class M planet we settle in the future will probably have to be terriformed, crops either GE'ed or descended from Earth species, etc. But it is also possible that Life is not as protean as it would seem from the dazzling variety on Earth, and when we get there we will find the indigenous critters are made of the same amino acids, we can eat them and they can eat us. Neither possibility can be ruled out at this time.

 

One reason we need to put boots on the ground on Mars, and put "workspaces" where we can operate remote probes with a lot less timelag that we can do now near Europa and Titan. Need to find out (1) is there life elsewhere in the Solar System and (2) if there is, does it have a common ancestor with Earth life?

[assault]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

HOWEVER' date=' IMHO putting people in a self-sufficent O'Neil habatat would qualify as colonization. Couple hundred years from now we'll have several in the Belt, maybe a few in the Oort Cloud.[/quote']

 

Possibly. This may well be technically the most plausible solution. (It also ties in well with that Banks stuff I linked to.)

 

But it still involves massive infrastructure just to allow people to live there. In other words, there is a massive investment involved simply to start it up. Then again, once it is done once, it would be easier to do the second time, and so on.

 

It faces a massive initial economic barrier. It's quite possible that this could be overcome, and it would be in a game setting.

 

The other question, of course, is what would these things actually be like to live in? I have a sneaking suspicion that they would effectively be cities, with a bunch of "stuff" around them to support them. That's a bit of a bummer from a game point of view - there wouldn't be much in the way of "wilderness" to play around in. You could have some unstructured biological reserve areas, but mainly you would have lots of highly mechanised, mostly boring farm/garden areas.

 

You could do the same with dome complexes on the Moon and Mars, too, of course. These would be "easier" than full terraforming, too. But you would still be living in a bunch of bubbles.

 

But it is also possible that Life is not as protean as it would seem from the dazzling variety on Earth, and when we get there we will find the indigenous critters are made of the same amino acids, we can eat them and they can eat us. Neither possibility can be ruled out at this time.

 

Possibly. I don't think mixing terrestrial and non-terrestrial species would be a particularly good idea even in this case, or, rather, especially in this case.

 

Most biology is microbiology. That means that two such biospheres would inevitably mutually contaminate. We don't know which would dominate, whether they would coexist, or what such coexistance would involve.

 

Think of it like this: what would happen when these alien bacteria/algae/whatever started colonising Earth?

 

This kind of thing has a lot to do with why I don't think a non-terrestrial life-bearing world would be a particularly desirable place to colonise. And that's without asking any strange "moral" questions.

[McCoy]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

But it still involves massive infrastructure just to allow people to live there. In other words' date=' there is a massive investment involved simply to start it up. Then again, once it is done once, it would be easier to do the second time, and so on.[/quote']

Maybe some sort of "indenture" system, but with a more PC name. Group gets transportation to a habatat, as soon as they build two more they own the first one.

 

The other question' date=' of course, is what would these things actually be like to live in? I have a sneaking suspicion that they would effectively be cities, with a bunch of "stuff" around them to support them. That's a bit of a bummer from a game point of view - there wouldn't be much in the way of "wilderness" to play around in. You could have some unstructured biological reserve areas, but mainly you would have lots of highly mechanised, mostly boring farm/garden areas.[/quote']

My design assumes nested cylinders, each spining independently to give approperate pseudogravity. The innermost one "city," the next one "farm," the next ome "park," and the largest one "ocean." Agree, not much gaiming potential until Something Goes Wrong.

[assault]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

Maybe some sort of "indenture" system' date=' but with a more PC name. Group gets transportation to a habatat, as soon as they build two more they own the first one.[/quote']

 

This seems needlessly complicated, compared to just contracting a company to build one.

 

Agree, not much gaiming potential until Something Goes Wrong.

 

The problem here is how often can Things Go Wrong?

 

Of course, if the Thing that Went Wrong was something like falling down a wormhole, once is more than enough.

 

But at that point it's time to start watching old episodes of Space: 1999, Doctor Who, Farscape, Star Trek: DS9 and Babylon 5... Which means that we're way off in Space Opera territory.

 

Or, I suppose the alternative would be to find out Who Made Things Go Wrong. That could go off into lots of interesting places - anywhere from Iain Banks to Phillip K Dick. (Oh yeah, and beyond, but who cares?)

[tkdguy]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

That poses another problem in a hard SF campaign, or in RL, for that matter. Chances are if something goes wrong, everyone can end up dead.

[McCoy]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

Most biology is microbiology. That means that two such biospheres would inevitably mutually contaminate. We don't know which would dominate, whether they would coexist, or what such coexistance would involve.

 

Think of it like this: what would happen when these alien bacteria/algae/whatever started colonising Earth?

An issue only if FTL turns out to be possible. If it takes a couple hundred years to get from here to there and back again, think that's a pretty effective quarenteen.

 

Again, unless FTL is possible, the only thing I see any colony world sending back will be information. The STL trips will tend to be one way only.

[tkdguy]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

Any thoughts about the possible (or impossible) colonization of the planets and moons on this solar system? I'm assuming only an STL case.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

. . . In the near term, I can see only O'Neill colonies as viable for large scale colonization, since other worlds would have to be extensively terraformed -- a process that would, realistically, require thousands of years to complete.

[McCoy]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

Any thoughts about the possible (or impossible) colonization of the planets and moons on this solar system? I'm assuming only an STL case.

 

. . . In the near term' date=' I can see only O'Neill colonies as viable for large scale colonization, since other worlds would have to be extensively terraformed -- a process that would, realistically, require thousands of years to complete.[/quote']

Agree. I can see settlements on the Moon and Mars, maybe some of the larger asteroids (especally Apollo class, the ones that cross Earth's orbit). Without much better radiation shielding than we currently have the Jovan sattellites are not suitable for long-term habitation, though we do need to explore Europa. Saturn? Titan's too freaking cold, some of the others may be suitable, but it's so far away you'd almost need an O'Neil habitat to get there, so why not just keep the majority of your population in the habitat?

[Cancer]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

Mars is a "so near, yet so far" colonization site. The Moon has certain unique advantages in addition to being close to Earth. There are very interesting suggestions that Venus once was habitable but never will be again due to the slow increase in solar luminosity. I can imagine asteroids being harvested, but not colonized on a multi-generation basis. I haven't made up my mind yet about KBOs and satellites of the Jovian planets; energy becomes a real problem out there, so far from the Sun. At Saturn the solar energy density is only about 1% of what it is here. For the Galilean satellites, Jupiter's radiation environment is almost unthinkably hostile.

 

The real problem is economics, the lack of a clear high-payout profit opportunity. "We came to serve God and the King ... and to Get Rich," said Bernal Diaz. The threshold for that profit gets lower as Earth-to-orbit tech improves (though the real barrier with real-physics colonization is sustained closed environment, not access to space), but it's a long way off yet.

[ThothAmon]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

I've been watching this one grow and want to add my suggestions now

 

Motivations

 

One fantastic way to get the colony situation in place for a game is simple brute force - the John Varley Nine Worlds scenario - the Earth is overrun by uncommunicative unkillable unseen gas-giant aliens who consider tool-using species to be inferior life forms to (for example) cetaceans. Earth is a complete no-go zone. Any ships that enter Earth atmosphere are never seen or heard from again. The remnants of mankind on the fledgling Luna and Mars colonies are forced to colonize the remaining planets and other bodies in the Sol system. Varley novels such as 'The Ophiuchi Hotline' and the other stories in this setting are brimming with ideas for you to grep. It's all STL and all set within the Sol system

 

A good GM driving force for colonization is religious or philosophical ideals. Someone has already mentioned fundamentalist sects, something to which I'd give serious consideration. A plausible near future scenario might involve the Western world turning fundamentalist Christian with a true Space Race between the Islamic nations, the West and China. You also have fringe religions and cults which could theoretically lead the way in colonization. I'm thinking of the real-life Raelians and Scientologists but there is nothing to say that stranger fictional religions couldn't feature (see Transhumanism below).

 

An eceonomic driving force also works given the right factors. Consider a scenario like that in the classic SF novel 'The Space Merchants' where Earth is so crowded that the world's premier ad agencies are engaged to sell the idea of mass colonization to Joe Public. This is (in a small way) very similar to the backstory in 'Bladerunner' and other such cyberpunk future-in-ruins tales i.e. when the corporates take to space there is nothing economically worthwhile left on Earth. All industry and tech is up the gravity well and the only way to get ahead is to become indentured to the corporation of your choice.

 

Closely following that is a military driving force. The problems there are obvious in that support infrastructure of some sort is required. I could run with the idea of military-driven colonization in response to Earth-borne disasters (natural or man made), perhaps in a manner similar to the classic SF movie 'When Worlds Collide'. There is a complete very gritty campaign setting available online (by Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere) that presupposes military colonization of Mars as a response to deterioration of Earth and the end of civilization in a very post-apocalyptic manner

 

Alternatively, there is the GM fiat of technological driving force. The SF novel 'Accelerando' tackles the idea of a technological Singularity, a point in time where technology and intelligence advances so quickly that standard economics simply falls apart and new social models are required. AIs become prevalent and Luddite mankind is forced away from the inner Sol system as transhumans and AIs seek to become hyper-efficient Matrioshka brains competing for energy. This is a heavy area to discuss on a forum so I'm going to point you to a starting links:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_Singularity

 

The Transhumanist philosophies make for very persuasive background on colonization. There are a lot of very intelligent people who would jump at the idea of colonization on the back of these philosophies.

 

Tech Considerations

 

Getting up the gravity well in the first place is one of the biggest issues for real-life colonization of space. It costs sooo much to put mass out of Earth's gravity well that, to date, we haven't really had a Space Program, we've had expensive technical exercises designed to advance geopolitical ideas. If we could establish a permanent zero G presence, either at La Grange points or on Luna, we could remove one of the major hurdles to STL colonization of the Sol system. There are two novels which IMO provide very good discussions/arguments in the areas of the economics of Sol colonization; 'The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein and 'Web Between The Worlds' by Charles Sheffield. The former deals adroitly with the idea that a Lunar colony could eventually outstrip Earth as an economic powerhouse due to decreased G. The latter, even after umpty years, is still a marvel of intelligent thinking on how to solve some of the problems inherent in STL travel and overcoming gravity.

 

One additional key point for mass STL colonization is the availability of hydroponics and other life support systems that actually work on a micro and macro level. After that it's a matter of reaction mass for your vessel and energy requirements. If you're prepared to ride out the worst bus journey ever, you can get there.

 

Something that makes STL colonization unattractive is the time to get anywhere. That could be mitigated by (for example) the realization that lifespans can be greatly extended by the benefits of life in zero G. Alternatively, access to excellent medical technologies and gene therapies could theoretically prolong the average lifespan to 200+ years, making boredom and suicide the major threat to life expectancy

Deus Ex Machina

 

I like the GM potential of small colonies being forced to grow when Earth is out of the picture. How the GM removes Earth is the clever part. If you want a horror flavour then the stars come right and the Great Old Ones are released from their prisons to bring about the End Times. If you want to play the hard physics card then Earth is hit by a planetkiller asteroid that causes tectonic slippage and nuclear winter/desert all at the same time.

 

All you have to decide then is, at the time of the destruction, what the smaller details are. How advanced have the colonies become (first generation children, second generation or further)? What tech levels are available to the colonies and what infrastructures do they have available? How diverse are the colonies?

[Vondy]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

Or if you've spent 8 years and wracked up a hundred thousand dollars in debt getting your PhD' date=' and cannot find a job that does not involve the phrase "Do you want fries with that?" You'll go anywhere if they'll write off the student loans as part of the deal.[/quote']

 

Ah, Martian (Northern) Exposure....

[Vondy]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

Wanted: Colonial Marine, 8 Year Term, mustering out benefits include land and economic grants. You also get your room and board for free, and can additional funds. If your home planet has harsh economic conditons and is overcrowded it might be a gravy train.

[McCoy]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

There are very interesting suggestions that Venus once was habitable but never will be again due to the slow increase in solar luminosity.

Possibly Venus could be habitable again, first step is massive carbon sequestration. But Terraforming Venus is a project requiring centuries if not millennia.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

An economic driving force also works given the right factors. Consider a scenario like that in the classic SF novel 'The Space Merchants' where Earth is so crowded that the world's premier ad agencies are engaged to sell the idea of mass colonization to Joe Public. This is (in a small way) very similar to the backstory in 'Bladerunner' and other such cyberpunk future-in-ruins tales i.e. when the corporates take to space there is nothing economically worthwhile left on Earth. All industry and tech is up the gravity well and the only way to get ahead is to become indentured to the corporation of your choice.

 

 

unfortunately, this is the scenario that I keep finding myself nodding at and going "yep, that's the future I expect"

 

Colonists will be identified by the serial number on the ID card they have clipped to their Microsoft coveralls.

[assault]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

That could be mitigated by (for example) the realization that lifespans can be greatly extended by the benefits of life in zero G.

 

Living in zero G is bad for you.

[McCoy]

Re: Making colonization attractive?

 

Living in zero G is bad for you.

No, coming back to gravity after an extended stay in ziggy is bad for you. The problem doesn't seem to be that we don't adapt to free-fall, but that we adapt too well.

 

(Which could be another small piece of support for the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, do we adapt to zero gee quickly because we had a period in our evolutionary past where we adapted to neutral boyancy? Don't know, but find the very possibility facinating.)