Encourage the space-industry to move away from the concept of “colonization”.
- by: Dicoet http://shoyboi.wix.com/dicoet
- recipient: NASA, Mars One, Google, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, MarsDrive, Mars Direct, Mars Society, International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations
Encourage the space industry to move toward a future of honest-equality, free of the brutal political concept “colonization”.
Lets think hard about the future that we may be building from the words and actions taken today and consider the most effective ideas and terms that best meet the needs of the future and properly conduct the efforts of the present. We ask the Space Industry and governmental bodies to reject the term and political concept of “colonization” in the discussion around Mars.
In this discussion we need a common ground and that is that the term colonization is a political one in this instance.
A colony of Bees = explicit = not-political
A colony of Bactria = explicit = not-political
A colony of Humans on Mars = implicit = political
“The fact that we are at this time debating a realty that hasn’t even happened yet should be clear indications of its possible political gravity.” - J.C. online discussion on possible Mars Settlement.
A colony of bees, a bacterial colony… So what’s the harm in colonizing Mars? Simply, if humanity is to put its best foot forward into the universe and visit another plant it should not use the term colonization.
The first planet we are likely to visit is Mars, though some studies indicate that Mars is possibly supporting methane producing life, likely in the form of underground bacteria; there is still no conclusive evidence of life on Mars. Even still, even if human kind is vesting an uninhabited planet, there are many reasons as to why we should never use the terms of colonization, especially in this circumstance.
Firstly the term “Mars Colonization” could be used to glorify the concept of colonization and simply through association, the history of colonization. Colonization as a human political concept has been one of the most effective tools used by the slave trade and people/resources exploitation industry to invade and govern foreign lands. Too many of us, including myself the word alone bring an immediate shiver to think of the many developing countries even to this day still ravaged by the social-economic effects of colonization. Countries like Angola fought long and bloody wars where many thousands of innocent lives were lost in order to free its self from colonel rule. The United States of America also fought a brutal battle of independence in 1776 to escape the addles of their British colonel masters. The global space industry (NASA, Mars One, Virgin galactic etc.) have shown they are aware of this, however that hasn’t stopped the term from being bandied about in articles and excitedly discussed on web sites and blogs. We need to nip this problem in the bud, in the media and in the space industry.
There is another reason as to why this issue needs to be dealt with before anyone sets foot on another planet. The term colonization sets up a rigid and specific political pre-context to life on Mars. Many Sci-fi novels have dealt with this possible future quagmire however it could prove to be real life and difficult issue. If the first human to seek refuge on Mars was considered to be legally “agents of the state” such as all Canadians citizens are, even if the Canadian astronaut didn’t intend it, it would be hard to refute a Canadian governmental clam that would give them political extension and power over the lands there. How much land? Who knows, the whole planet could be considered theirs resulting in an immediate conflict, even with the UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty still in effect.
More on that, this issue was dealt with prior to the moon landing by the UN in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, they wrote up this treaty so to curb the extent of the cold war, so when America landed on the moon they were not able to calm it as there colony thus starting an inner-solar system land dispute with the soviet union. They wanted to insure that the Soviet Union would not consider the lunar landing a land grab and fight over it or vice-versa if the USSR was the first to go to the moon, they wanted to insure the USA wouldn't take offence. So they declared the moon to be off limits to political bodies so no earth based government could lay claim to it. They could land on it but it didn't mean it was theirs. This turned out to be a smart move on the UN's behalf. This agreement still stands today however in recent years has been under more and more scrutiny as mining on the moon is being considered a future possibility.
You may think that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty solves all possible space habitation related legal problems, and in a way it does, that is until someone acutely lives there and countries and organizations start taking interest in Mars as a viable place to be. For example what happens when someone tries to declare their independence or break the laws of the country on their home planet? When you consider the facts and possibility’s you can immediately see how the1967 treaty could fall apart. In a way symbolically the treaty has been broken many, many times for example by the US planting a flag on the moon.
How do we avoid all this, simple, first we find a new way to talk about it, we need terms defined by the UN that make it clear so to all that earth politics wont hamper missions any more than it needs to.
Suggested terms to be defined as non-political space-bodies of refuge and asylum:
1. Refuge
2. Astral-Terrafermaization
3. Terrafermaization
4. Terra-forming
5. Resource Exploitation
6. Exploratory Outpost
7. Mars Encampments
8. Exploratory Community
9. Science outpost
10. Mars Research Community
11. Settlement
12.(Feel invited to invent your own term and be part of the conversation.)
Looking at this brief list of suggestions you may wonder why the term exploitation is considered valid while the term colonization not-valid. This is because exploitation is a term that simply describes what is happening, whereas the term colonization is a policy charged system of belief with specific and varied contradictory meninges and associations around the world. In short call a spade a spade.
Resources:
1. (The 1967 Outer Space Treaty.)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090717-who-owns-moon-real-estate.html
2. (How the media uses the term colonization.)
http://www.euronews.com/2013/05/09/more-than-78000-people-ready-to-colonize-mars/
3. (The Mars One take on colonization.)
Our web sight:
Encourage the space industry to move toward a future of honest-equality, free of the brutal political concept “colonization”.
Dear members of the international space industry:
We ask you to think hard about the future that may be built from the words and actions taken by you in today and to consider the most effective ideas and terms that best meet the needs of the future and properly conduct the efforts of the present. We ask you to reject the term and political concept of “colonization” in the discussion around Mars.
As members of the space industry and the forefathers of great human endeavours we encourage you to no longer use the term “colonization”.Decolonize the discussion around Mars and encourage the space industry to reject the term “colonization”.
In this discussion we need a common ground and that is that the term colonization is a political one in this instance.
A colony of Bees = not-political
A colony of Bactria = not-political
A colony of Humans on Mars = political, extremely political
“The fact that we are at this time debating a realty that hasn’t even happened yet should be clear indications of its possible political gravity.” - J.C. in a online discussion on possible Mars Settlement.
A colony of bees, a bacterial colony… So what’s the harm in colonizing Mars? Simply, if humanity is to put its best foot forward into the universe and visit another plant it should not use the term colonization.
The first planet we are likely to visit is Mars, though some studies indicate that Mars is possibly supporting methane producing life, likely in the form of underground bacteria; there is still no conclusive evidence of life on Mars. Even still, even if human kind is vesting an uninhabited planet, there are many reasons as to why we should never use the terms colonization, especially in this circumstance.
Firstly the term “Mars Colonization” could be used to glorify the concept of colonization and simply through association, the history of colonization. Colonization as a human political concept has been one of the most effective tools used by the slave trade and people/resources exploitation industry to invade and govern foreign lands. Too many of us, including myself the word alone bring an immediate shiver to think of the many developing countries even to this day still ravaged by the social-economic effects of colonization. Countries like Angola fought long and bloody wars where many thousands of innocent lives were lost in order to free its self from colonel rule. The United States of America also fought a brutal battle of independence in 1776 to escape the addles of their British colonel masters. The global space industry (NASA, Mars One, Virgin galactic etc.) have shown they are aware of this, however that hasn’t stopped the term from being bandied about in articles and excitedly discussed on web sites and blogs. We need to nip this problem in the bud, in the media and in the space industry.
There is another reason as to why this issue needs to be dealt with before anyone sets foot on another planet. The term colonization sets up a rigid and specific political pre-context to life on Mars. Many Sci-fi novels have dealt with this possible future quagmire however it could prove to be real life and difficult issue. If the first human to seek refuge on Mars was considered to be legally “agents of the state” such as all Canadians citizens are, even if the Canadian astronaut didn’t intend it, it would be hard to refute a Canadian governmental clam that would give them political extension and power over the lands there. How much land? Who knows, the whole planet could be considered theirs resulting in an immediate conflict, even with the UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty still in effect.
More on that, this issue was dealt with prior to the moon landing by the UN in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, they wrote up this treaty so to curb the extent of the cold war, so when America landed on the moon they were not able to calm it as there colony thus starting an inner-solar system land dispute with the soviet union. They wanted to insure that the Soviet Union would not consider the lunar landing a land grab and fight over it or vice-versa if the USSR was the first to go to the moon, they wanted to insure the USA wouldn't take offence. So they declared the moon to be off limits to political bodies so no earth based government could lay claim to it. They could land on it but it didn't mean it was theirs. This turned out to be a smart move on the UN's behalf. This agreement still stands today however in recent years has been under more and more scrutiny as mining on the moon is being considered a future possibility.
You may think that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty solves all possible space habitation related legal problems, and in a way it does, that is until someone acutely lives there and countries and organizations start taking interest in Mars as a viable place to be. For example what happens when someone tries to declare their independence or break the laws of the country on their home planet? When you consider the facts and possibility’s you can immediately see how the1967 treaty could fall apart. In a way symbolically the treaty has been broken many, many times for example by the US planting a flag on the moon.
How do we avoid all this, simple, first we find a new way to talk about it, we need terms defined by the UN that make it clear so to all that earth politics wont hamper missions any more than it needs to.
Suggested terms to be defined as non-political space-bodies of refuge and asylum:
1. Refuge
2. Astral-Terrafermaization
3. Terrafermaization
4. Terra-forming
5. Resource Exploitation
6. Exploratory Outpost
7. Mars Encampments
8. Exploratory Community
9. Science outpost
10. Mars Research Community
11. (Feel invited to invent your own term and be part of the conversation.)
Looking at this brief list of suggestions you may wonder why the term exploitation is considered valid while the term colonization not-valid. This is because exploitation is a term that simply describes what is happening, whereas the term colonization is a policy charged system of belief with specific and varied contradictory meninges and associations around the world. In short call a spade a spade.
By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
You can unsub at any time here.
Having problems signing this? Let us know.