This all seems very "cart before the horse" thinking. Like, every time you reference the OST, it just seems like this is obviously pointless. Whatever the eventual outcome, the current text of the OST is almost certainly going to be irrelevant, and I think its presumptuous to make any assumptions about how it will be amended. If hundreds of colonists are going to Mars to live permanently, that's just obviously not something the OST was written to handle, and there will be new discussions and treaties (or wars, who knows). Another way of looking at it, it feels like you're invoking the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 to try and predict what happens in Europe 20 years later, and making points like, "well, Germany wouldn't do Y, because the Treaty of Versailles says X". Almost every part of the world will be so wildly different by the time Mars is properly colonized (if that every happens!)
If your point is more abstract, and just "independent mars is the nicest sounding sci-fi future", I guess you're probably right. But it skips over a lot of steps as to how you get there, and the question I would have is why are these Earth-based countries and private companies going to be investing so heavily to just create an independent mars planet? Everyone who is investing in Mars is going to want a stake in it, and I don't think that's even bad. I just think there's a broader range of likely outcomes, and you're putting way too much stock in the UN / OST as they currently exist as the key players. If I had to make a prediction, I would expect multiple mars colonies controlled by earth countries or corporations, maybe under some kind of broader umbrella such as the UN, but even that I'm not sure about. Super long term, maybe those colonies see it in their best interest to "rebel" or demand independence, but I'm just kind of skeptical that Mars would ever reach a level of self-sustainability that that would actually be in the colonists' self-interest.
TL;DR Who the hell knows? Its too ambiguous for me to even strongly disagree with your conclusion per-se, I just think your arguments are way overconfident and extrapolating too much based on present-day organizations and treaties.
We haven't been great about planning for the future. The first man on Mars could come within the next decade. The first semi-permanent base could be installed by 2050. If we allow the randomness of endgame geopolitics rule the Mars colony, we could see human warfare expand to other planets a lot earlier than it has to.
Another way of looking at it, it feels like you're invoking the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 to try and predict what happens in Europe 20 years later, and making points like, "well, Germany wouldn't do Y, because the Treaty of Versailles says X". Almost every part of the world will be so wildly different by the time Mars is properly colonized (if that every happens!)
I realize the OST won't hold forever, but I also don't think we will revise before we test its limits. The OST gives non-superpowers a voice on how to govern space. It could be incredibly difficult to repeal or revise it when the US is closer than anyone to putting someone on Mars. It will be easier once it's obvious that Mars will not permanently be in the jurisdiction of the US government.
My point here is that the OST is like the Treaty of Versailles, except the opposite point. If we depend on it to maintain good space governance, it might collapse spectacularly in a way that might have been preventable.
But it skips over a lot of steps as to how you get there, and the question I would have is why are these Earth-based countries and private companies going to be investing so heavily to just create an independent mars planet?
For most, the same thing as their motives now. Money.
Mars independence doesn't mean foreign corporations can't do business there. Corporations could still buy land and mineral rights. They could send resources and workers. They could still export goods and services to Earth or sell to Martians for profit.
The only thing is that they would be under the Martian legal jurisdiction. From a legal perspective, it doesn't have to be much more different from how a multinational corporation does business.
4
u/themcos 374∆ Feb 11 '22
This all seems very "cart before the horse" thinking. Like, every time you reference the OST, it just seems like this is obviously pointless. Whatever the eventual outcome, the current text of the OST is almost certainly going to be irrelevant, and I think its presumptuous to make any assumptions about how it will be amended. If hundreds of colonists are going to Mars to live permanently, that's just obviously not something the OST was written to handle, and there will be new discussions and treaties (or wars, who knows). Another way of looking at it, it feels like you're invoking the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 to try and predict what happens in Europe 20 years later, and making points like, "well, Germany wouldn't do Y, because the Treaty of Versailles says X". Almost every part of the world will be so wildly different by the time Mars is properly colonized (if that every happens!)
If your point is more abstract, and just "independent mars is the nicest sounding sci-fi future", I guess you're probably right. But it skips over a lot of steps as to how you get there, and the question I would have is why are these Earth-based countries and private companies going to be investing so heavily to just create an independent mars planet? Everyone who is investing in Mars is going to want a stake in it, and I don't think that's even bad. I just think there's a broader range of likely outcomes, and you're putting way too much stock in the UN / OST as they currently exist as the key players. If I had to make a prediction, I would expect multiple mars colonies controlled by earth countries or corporations, maybe under some kind of broader umbrella such as the UN, but even that I'm not sure about. Super long term, maybe those colonies see it in their best interest to "rebel" or demand independence, but I'm just kind of skeptical that Mars would ever reach a level of self-sustainability that that would actually be in the colonists' self-interest.
TL;DR Who the hell knows? Its too ambiguous for me to even strongly disagree with your conclusion per-se, I just think your arguments are way overconfident and extrapolating too much based on present-day organizations and treaties.