• Question: Considering that the likelyhood of humanity reaching Mars, do you think it should be kept as a neutral territory for scientific research, or colonised to provide more room for our expanding population?

    Asked by happyman to James, Marcus, Martin, Rob, Suzanne on 16 Mar 2012.
    • Photo: Suzanne McEndoo

      Suzanne McEndoo answered on 16 Mar 2012:

      I think initially it should be kept neutral, like the north and south poles (is that right, they’re neutral?) as resources for all of humanity.

      Colonisation would happen much later, so we’d have to change it then. It would be cool if Mars could be a new country/set of countries, but I imagine it would be hard to operate like this at first. Mars is so far away, it might make more sense if the colonists fell under the jurisdiction of a particular country or group of countries, so there is someone on earth looking out for them. Then maybe later we’d have the martian wars of independence, kinda like how it went in the new world?

      Sometimes I feel a bit sad that I probably won’t live long enough to see all this stuff.

    • Photo: Marcus Gallagher-Jones

      Marcus Gallagher-Jones answered on 16 Mar 2012:

      They are indeed as of 2008 (I just looked it up). Seems the Antarctic has been neutral since the 60’s but the arctic, which actually borders 8 countries, was uner contention for a while.

      I think a lot of scientific research would need to take place before the surface of Mars could be deemed safe enough to begin colonisation. To that end it would be best for it to remain a neutral territory. This would prevent different nations working on the same projects separately.Moving to another planet would be a huge endeavour so the whole world would need to be working together I think, not to mention the cost.

Comments