West to Mars-Significance of the Martian Frontier

Significance of the Martian Frontier

A bit more than one hundred years ago, a young professor of history from the then-relatively obscure University of Wisconsin got up to speak at the annual conference of the American Historical Association. Frederick Jackson Turner's talk was scheduled as the last one in the evening session. A long series of obscure papers preceded his address, yet the majority of the conference participants remained to hear him. Perhaps a rumor had gotten afoot that something important was about to be said. If so, it was correct; for in one bold sweep Turner presented a brilliant insight into the basis of American society and the American character. It was not legal theories, precedents, traditions, national or racial stock that was the source of America's egalitarian democracy, individualism, and spirit of innovation, he said. It was the existence of the frontier.

"To the frontier the American intellect owes its striking characteristics," Turner said, "The coarseness of strength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients; that masterful grasp of material things, lacking in the artistic but powerful to effect great ends; that restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualism, working for good and evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance that comes from freedom-these are the traits of the frontier, or traits called out elsewhere because of the existence of the frontier."

Turner went on driving his points home, "For a moment, at the frontier, the bonds of custom are broken and unrestraint is triumphant. There is no tabula rasa. The stubborn American environment is there with its imperious summons to accept its conditions; the inherited ways of doing things are also there; and yet, in spit of the environment, and in spite of custom, each frontier did indeed furnish a new opportunity, a gate of escape from the bondage of the past; and freshness, and confidence, and scorn of older society, impatience of its restraints and its ideas, and indifference to its lessons, have accompanied the frontier."

"What the Mediterranean Sea was to the Greeks, breaking the bonds of custom, offering new experiences, calling out new institutions and activities, that and more the ever retreating frontier has been to the United States . . ."

The Turner thesis was an intellectual bombshell, which within a few years created an entire school of historians who demonstrated that not only American culture, but the progressive humanist civilization that America generally represented resulted primarily from the great frontier of global settlement opened to Europe by the Age of Exploration.

Turner presented his paper in 1893. Just three years earlier, in 1890, the American frontier had been declared closed: The line of settlement that had always defined the furthermost existence of western expansion had actually met the line of settlement coming east from California. Today, a century later, we face the question that Turner himself posed-what if the frontier is truly gone? What happens to America and all it has stood for? Can a free, egalitarian, innovating society survive in the absence of room to grow?

Perhaps the question was premature in Turner's time, but not now. Currently we see around us an ever more apparent loss of vigor of our society: increasing fixity of the power structure and bureaucratization of all levels of life; impotence of political institutions to carry off great projects; the proliferation of regulations affecting all aspects of public, private, and commercial life; the spread of irrationalsim; the banalization of popular culture; the loss of willingness by individuals to take risks, to fend for themselves or think for themselves; economic stagnation and decline; the deceleration of the rate of technological innovation . . . Everywhere you look, the writing is on the wall.

Without a frontier from which to breathe new life, the spirit that gave rise to the progressive humanistic culture that America has represented for the past two centuries is fading. The issue is not just one of national loss-human progress needs a vanguard, and no replacement is in sight.

The creation of a new frontier thus presents itself as America's and humanity's greatest social need. Nothing is more important: apply what palliatives you will, without a frontier to grow in, not only American society, but the entire global civilization based upon values of humanism, science, and progress will ultimately die.

I believe that humanity's new frontier can only be on Mars.

But why not Earth, under the oceans or in a remote region such as Antarctica? It is true that settlements on or under the sea or in Antarctica are entirely possible, and their establishment and access would be much easier than that of Martian colonies. Nevertheless, at this point in history such terrestrial developments cannot meet an essential requirement for a frontier-to wit, they are insufficiently remote to allow for the free development of a new society. In this day and age, with modern terrestrial communication and transportation systems, no matter how remote or hostile the spot on Earth, the cops are too close. If people are to have the dignity that comes with making their own world, they must be free of the old.

Mars has what it takes. It's far enough away to free its colonists from intellectual or cultural domination by the old world, and unlike the Moon, rich enough in resources to give birth to a new branch of human civilization. As we've seen, though the Red Planet may appear at first glance to be a frozen desert, it harbors resources in abundance that can enable the creation of an advance technological civilization. Mars is remote and can be settled. The fact that Mars can be settled and altered defines it a the New World that can create the basis for a positive future for terrestrial humanity for the next several centuries.

Why Humanity Needs Mars

"Everything has tended to regenerate them; new laws, a new mode of living, a new social system; here they are become men."

-Jean de Crevecoeur, Letters from an American Farmer,1782

The essence of humanist society is that it values human beings-human life and human rights are held precious beyond price. Such notions have been for several thousand years the core philosophical values of Western civilization, dating back to the Greeks and the JudeoChristian ideas of the divine nature of the human spirit. Yet they could never be implemented as a practical basis for the organization of society until the great explorers of the age of discovery threw open a New World in which the dormant seed of humanism contained within medieval Christendom could grow and blossom forth.

The problem with Christendom was that it was fixed-it was a play for which the script had been written and the leading roles both chosen and assigned. The problem was not that there were insufficient natural resources to go around-medieval Europe was not heavily populated, and there were plenty of forests and other wild areas-the problem was that all the resources were owned. A ruling class had been selected and set of ruling institutions, ideas, and customs had been selected with them, and by the law of "Survival of the Firstest," none could be displaced. Furthermore, not only had the leading roles been chosen, but so had those of the supporting cast and chorus, and there were only so many parts to go around. If you wanted to keep your part, you had to keep your place, and there was no place for someone without a part.

The New World changed all that by supplying a place in which there were no established ruling institutions. On such an improvisational stage, the players are not limited to the conventional role of actors-they become playwrights and directors as well. The unleashing of creative talent that such a novel situation allows is not only a great adventure for those lucky enough to be involved, it changes the opinion of the spectators as to the capabilities of actors in general. People who had no role in the old society could define their role in the new. People who did not "fit in" in the Old World could discover and demonstrate that far from being worthless, they were invaluable in the new, whether they journeyed there or not.

The New World destroyed the basis of aristocracy and created the basis for democracy. It allowed the development of diversity by allowing escape from those institutions that impose uniformity. It destroyed a closed intellectual world by importing unsanctioned data and experience. It made progress possible by escaping the hold of those institutions whose continued rule required continued stagnation, and it drove progress by defining a situation in which innovation to maximize the capabilities of the limited population available was desperately needed. It raised the dignity of workers by raising the price of labor and by demonstrating for all to see that human beings can be the creators of their world. In America, from Colonial times through the nineteenth century when cities were rapidly being built, people understood that America was not something one simple lived in-it was a place one helped build. People were not simple inhabitants of their world. They were makers of it.

A Tale of Two Worlds

Consider the probable fate of humanity in the twenty-first century under two conditions: with a Martian frontier and without it.

In the twenty-first century, without a Martian frontier, there is no question that human cultural diversity will decline severely. Already, in the late twentieth century, advanced communication and transportation technologies have eroded the healthy diversity of human cultures on Earth. As technology allows us to come closer together, so we come to be more alike. Finding a McDonald's in Beijing, country and western music in Tokyo, or a Michael Jordan T-shirt on the back of an Amazon native is no longer a great surprise.

Bringing together diverse cultures can be healthy, as it sometimes results in fusions that produce temporary flowerings in the arts and other areas. It can also result in very unpleasant increases in ethnic tensions. But however the energy released in the cultural merger is expended in the short term, the important thing in the long term is that it is expended. An analogy to cultural homogenization is that of connecting a wire between the terminals of a battery. A lot of heat can be generated for a while, but when all the potentials have been leveled, a condition a maximum entropy is reached and the battery is dead. The classic example of such a phenomenon in human history is the Roman Empire. The golden age produced by unification is frequently followed by stagnation and decline.

The tendency toward cultural homogenization on Earth can only accelerate in the twenty-first century. Furthermore, because of rapid communication and transportation technologies "shorting out" inter-cultural barriers, it will become increasingly impossible to obtain the degree of separation required to develop new and different cultures on Earth. If the Martian frontier is opened, however, this same process of technological advance will also enable us to establish a new, distinct, and dynamic branch of human culture on Mars and eventually more on worlds beyond. The precious diversity of humanity can thus be preserved on a broader field, but only on a broader field. One world will be just too small a domain to allow the preservation and continued generation of the diversity needed not just to keep life interesting, but to assure the survival of the human race.

Without the opening of a new frontier on Mars, continued Western civilization also faces the risk of technological stagnation. To some this may appear to be an odd statement, as the present age is frequently cited as one of technological wonders. In fact, however, the rate of progress within our society has been decreasing and at an alarming rate. To see this, it is only necessary to step back and compare the changes that have occurred in the past thirty years and the thirty years before that. Between 1906 and 1936 the world was revolutionized: Cities were electrified; telephones and broadcast radio became common; talking motion pictures appeared; automobiles became practical; and aviation progressed from the Wright Flyer to the DC-3 and Hawker Hurricane. Between 1936 and 1966 the world changed again, with the introduction of communication satellites and interplanetary spacecraft; computers; television; antibiotics; nuclear power; Atlas, Titan, and Saturn rockets; Boeing 727s and SR-71s. Compared to these changes, the technological innovations from 1966 to the present seem insignificant. Immense changes should have occurred during this period, but did not. Had we been following the previous sixty years' technological trajectory, we today would have videotelephones, solar-powered cars, maglev (magnetic levitation) trains, fusion reactors, hypersonic intercontinental travel, reliable and inexpensive transportation to Earth orbit, undersea cities, open-sea mariculture, and human settlements on the Moon and Mars. Instead, today we see important technological developments, such as nuclear power and biotechnology, being blocked or enmeshed in controversy-we are slowing down.

Now, under a nascent Martian civilization: Its future will depend critically upon the progress of science and technology. Just as the inventions produced by the necessities of frontier America were a powerful driving force on worldwide human progress in the nineteenth century, so the "Martian ingenuity" born in a culture that puts the utmost premium on intelligence, practical education, and the determination required to make real contributions will make much more than its fair share of the scientific and technological breakthroughs, which will dramatically advance the human condition in the twenty-first century.

A prime example of the Martian frontier driving new technology will undoubtedly be found in the arena of energy production. As on Earth, an ample supply of energy will be crucial the success of Mars settlements. The Red Planet does have one major energy resource that we currently know about: deuterium, which can be used as the fuel in nearly waste-free thermonuclear fusion reactors. Earth has large amounts of deuterium too, but with all of the existing investments in other, more polluting forms of energy production, the research that would make possible practical fusion power reactors has been allowed to stagnate. The Martian colonists are certain to be much more determined to get fusion on-line, and in doing so will massively benefit the mother planet as well.

The parallel between the Martian frontier and that of nineteenth century America as technology drivers is, if anything, vastly understated. America drove technological progress in the last century because its western frontier created a perpetual labor shortage back East, thus forcing the development of labor-saving machinery and providing a strong incentive for improvement of public education so that the skills of the limited work force could be maximized. This condition no longer holds true in America. In fact, far from prizing each additional citizen, anti-immigrant attitudes are on the rise, and a vast "service sector" of bureaucrats and menials is being created to absorb the energies of those parts of the population whose participation in the productive parts of the economy is no longer needed. Thus in the late twentieth century, and increasingly in the twenty-first, each additional citizen is and will be regarded as a burden.

On twenty-first century Mars, on the other hand, conditions of labor shortage will apply with a vengeance. Indeed, it can be safely said that no commodity on twenty-first century Mars will be more precious and more highly valued than human labor time. Workers on Mars will be paid more and treated better that their counterparts on Earth, and education will be driven to a higher standard than ever seen on the home planet. Just as the example of nineteenth-century America changed the way the common man was regarded and treated in Europe, so the impact of progressive Martian social conditions may be felt on Earth as well as on Mars. A new standard may be set for a higher form of humanist civilization on Mars, and, viewing it from afar, the citizens of Earth will rightly demand nothing less for themselves.

The frontier drove the development of democracy in America by creating a self-reliant population that insisted on the right to self-government. It is doubtful that democracy can persist without such people. True, the trappings of democracy exist in abundance in America today, but meaningful public participation in the process is deeply wanting. Consider that no representative of a new political party has been elected president of the United States since 1860. Likewise, neighborhood political clubs and ward structures that once allowed citizen participation in party deliberations have vanished. And a with reelection rate of 95 percent, the U.S. Congress is hardly a barometer of people's will. Furthermore, regardless of the will of Congress, the real laws, covering ever broader areas of economic and social life, are increasingly being made by a plethora of regulatory agencies whose officials do not even pretend to have been elected by anyone.

Democracy in America and elsewhere in Western civilization needs a shot in the arm. That boost can only come from the example of a frontier people whose civilization incorporates the ethos that breathed the spirit into democracy in America in the first place. As Americans showed Europe in the last century, so in the next the Martians can show us the path away from oligarchy and stagnation.

There are greater threats that a humanist society faces in a closed world than the return of oligarchy, and if the frontier remains closed, we are certain to face them in the twenty-first century. These threats are the spread of various sorts of anti-human ideologies and the development of political institutions that incorporate the notions that spring from them as a basis of operation. At the top of the list of such destructive ideas that tend to spread naturally in a closed society is the Malthus theory, which holds that since the world's resources are more or less fixed, population growth and living standards must be restricted or all of us will descend into bottomless misery.

Malthusianism is scientifically bankrupt-all predictions made upon it have been wrong, because human beings are not mere consumers of resources. Rather, we create resources by the development of new technologies that find use for them. The more people, the faster the rate of innovation. This is why (contrary to Malthus) as the world's population has increased, the standard of living has increased, and at an accelerating rate. Nevertheless, in a closed society Malthusianism has the appearance of self-evident truth, and herein lies the danger. It is not enough to argue against Malthusianism in the abstract-such debates are not settled in academic journals. Unless people can see broad vistas of unused resources in front of them, the belief in limited resources tends to follow as a matter of course. And if the idea is accepted that the world's resources are fixed, then each person is ultimately the enemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of every other race or nation. The extreme result is tyranny, war, and even genocide. Only in a universe of unlimited resources can all men be brothers.

Mars Beckons

"We have come recently to boast of a global economy without thinking of its implications, of how unfortunate we are in finding it. It would be more cheering if news should come that by some freak of the solar system another world had swung gently into our orbit and moved so close that a bridge could be built over which people could pass to new continents untenanted and seas uncharted. Would those eager immigrants repeat the process they followed when they had that opportunity, or would they redress the grievances of the old earth by a new bill of rights? The availability of such a new planet, at any rate, would prolong, if it did not save, a civilization based on dynamism, and in the prolongation the individual would again enjoy a spell of freedom . . .

It would be very interesting to speculate on what the human imagination is going to do with a frontierless world where it must seek its inspiration in uniformity rather than variety, in sameness rather that contrast, in safety rather that peril, in probing the harmless nuances of the known rather than the thundering uncertainties of unknown seas or continents. The dreamers, the poets, and the philosophers are after all but instruments which make vocal and articulate the hopes and aspirations and the fears of the people.

The people are going to miss the frontier more than words can express. For four centuries they heard its call, listened to its promise, and bet their lives and fortunes on its outcome. It calls no more . . ."

-Walter Prescott Webb, The Great Frontier, 1951

Western humanist civilization as we know and value it today was born in expansion, grew in expansion, and can only exist in a dynamic expanding state. While some form of human society might persist in a nonexpanding world, that society will not foster freedom, creativity, individuality, or progress. Such a dismal future might seem an outrageous prediction, except for the fact that for nearly all of its history most of humanity has been forced to endure such static modes of social organization, and the experience has not been a happy one. Free societies are the exception in human history-aside from isolated pockets, they have only existed during the four centuries of frontier expansion of the West. That history is now over. The frontier opened by the voyage of Christopher Columbus is now closed. If the era of Western humanist society is not to be seen by future historians as some kind of transitory golden age, a brief shining moment in an otherwise endless chronicle of human misery, then a new frontier must be opened. Mars beckons.

But Mars is only one planet, and with humanity's powers rising as they would in an age of an open Martian frontier, the job of transforming and settling it is unlikely to occupy our energies for more than three or four centuries. Does the settling of Mars then simply represent an opportunity to prolong, but not save, a civilization based upon dynamism? Isn't it the case that humanist civilization is ultimately doomed anyway? I think not.

The universe is vast. Its resources, if we can access them, truly are infinite. During the four centuries of the open frontier on Earth, science and technology have advanced at an astonishing pace. The technological capabilities achieved during the twentieth century would dwarf the expectations of any observer from the nineteenth, exceed the dreams of one from the eighteenth, and appear outright magical to someone from the seventeenth. The nearest stars are incredibly distant, about 10,000 times as far from earth as America is from Europe. If the past four centuries of progress have multiplied our reach by so great a ratio, might not four more centuries of freedom do the same again? There is ample reason to believe they would.

Settling the Red Planet will drive the development of ever faster modes of space transportation; terraforming Mars will drive the development of new and more powerful sources of energy. Both of these capabilities in turn will open up new frontiers ever deeper into the outer solar system, and the harder challenges posed by these new environments will drive the two key technologies of power and propulsion ever more forcefully. The key is not to let the process stop. If it is allowed to stop for any length of time, society will crystallize into a static form that is inimical to progress. That is what defines the present age as one of crisis. Our old frontier is closed. The first signs of social stagnation are clearly visible. Yet progress, while slowing is still extant: Our people still believe in it and our ruling institutions are not yet incompatible with it.

We still possess the greatest gift of the inheritance of a four-hundred -year-long Renaissance: To wit, the capacity to initiate another by opening the Martian frontier. If we fail to do so, our culture will not have that capacity long. Mars is harsh. Its settlers will need not only technology, but the scientific outlook, creativity, and free-thinking inventiveness that stand behind it. Mars will not allow itself to be settled by people from a static society-those people won't have what it takes. We still do. Mars today waits for the children of the old frontier. But Mars will not wait forever."

-The Case for Mars: the Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must,
ppg. 295 - 306, Dr. Robert Zubrin with Richard Wagner, 1996

Significance of the Martian Frontier
A bit more than one hundred years ago, a young professor of history from the then-relatively obscure University of Wisconsin got up to speak at the annual conference of the American Historical Association. Frederick Jackson Turner's talk was scheduled as the last one in the evening session. A long series of obscure papers preceded his address, yet the majority of the conference participants remained to hear him. Perhaps a rumor had gotten afoot that something important was about to be said. If so, it was correct; for in one bold sweep Turner presented a brilliant insight into the basis of American society and the American character. It was not legal theories, precedents, traditions, national or racial stock that was the source of America's egalitarian democracy, individualism, and spirit of innovation, he said. It was the existence of the frontier. "To the frontier the American intellect owes its striking characteristics," Turner said, "The coarseness of strength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients; that masterful grasp of material things, lacking in the artistic but powerful to effect great ends; that restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualism, working for good and evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance that comes from freedom-these are the traits of the frontier, or traits called out elsewhere because of the existence of the frontier." Turner went on driving his points home, "For a moment, at the frontier, the bonds of custom are broken and unrestraint is triumphant. There is no tabula rasa. The stubborn American environment is there with its imperious summons to accept its conditions; the inherited ways of doing things are also there; and yet, in spit of the environment, and in spite of custom, each frontier did indeed furnish a new opportunity, a gate of escape from the bondage of the past; and freshness, and confidence, and scorn of older society, impatience of its restraints and its ideas, and indifference to its lessons, have accompanied the frontier." "What the Mediterranean Sea was to the Greeks, breaking the bonds of custom, offering new experiences, calling out new institutions and activities, that and more the ever retreating frontier has been to the United States . . ." The Turner thesis was an intellectual bombshell, which within a few years created an entire school of historians who demonstrated that not only American culture, but the progressive humanist civilization that America generally represented resulted primarily from the great frontier of global settlement opened to Europe by the Age of Exploration. Turner presented his paper in 1893. Just three years earlier, in 1890, the American frontier had been declared closed: The line of settlement that had always defined the furthermost existence of western expansion had actually met the line of settlement coming east from California. Today, a century later, we face the question that Turner himself posed-what if the frontier is truly gone? What happens to America and all it has stood for? Can a free, egalitarian, innovating society survive in the absence of room to grow? Perhaps the question was premature in Turner's time, but not now. Currently we see around us an ever more apparent loss of vigor of our society: increasing fixity of the power structure and bureaucratization of all levels of life; impotence of political institutions to carry off great projects; the proliferation of regulations affecting all aspects of public, private, and commercial life; the spread of irrationalsim; the banalization of popular culture; the loss of willingness by individuals to take risks, to fend for themselves or think for themselves; economic stagnation and decline; the deceleration of the rate of technological innovation . . . Everywhere you look, the writing is on the wall. Without a frontier from which to breathe new life, the spirit that gave rise to the progressive humanistic culture that America has represented for the past two centuries is fading. The issue is not just one of national loss-human progress needs a vanguard, and no replacement is in sight. The creation of a new frontier thus presents itself as America's and humanity's greatest social need. Nothing is more important: apply what palliatives you will, without a frontier to grow in, not only American society, but the entire global civilization based upon values of humanism, science, and progress will ultimately die. I believe that humanity's new frontier can only be on Mars. But why not Earth, under the oceans or in a remote region such as Antarctica? It is true that settlements on or under the sea or in Antarctica are entirely possible, and their establishment and access would be much easier than that of Martian colonies. Nevertheless, at this point in history such terrestrial developments cannot meet an essential requirement for a frontier-to wit, they are insufficiently remote to allow for the free development of a new society. In this day and age, with modern terrestrial communication and transportation systems, no matter how remote or hostile the spot on Earth, the cops are too close. If people are to have the dignity that comes with making their own world, they must be free of the old. Mars has what it takes. It's far enough away to free its colonists from intellectual or cultural domination by the old world, and unlike the Moon, rich enough in resources to give birth to a new branch of human civilization. As we've seen, though the Red Planet may appear at first glance to be a frozen desert, it harbors resources in abundance that can enable the creation of an advance technological civilization. Mars is remote and can be settled. The fact that Mars can be settled and altered defines it a the New World that can create the basis for a positive future for terrestrial humanity for the next several centuries. Why Humanity Needs Mars "Everything has tended to regenerate them; new laws, a new mode of living, a new social system; here they are become men." -Jean de Crevecoeur, Letters from an American Farmer,1782 The essence of humanist society is that it values human beings-human life and human rights are held precious beyond price. Such notions have been for several thousand years the core philosophical values of Western civilization, dating back to the Greeks and the JudeoChristian ideas of the divine nature of the human spirit. Yet they could never be implemented as a practical basis for the organization of society until the great explorers of the age of discovery threw open a New World in which the dormant seed of humanism contained within medieval Christendom could grow and blossom forth. The problem with Christendom was that it was fixed-it was a play for which the script had been written and the leading roles both chosen and assigned. The problem was not that there were insufficient natural resources to go around-medieval Europe was not heavily populated, and there were plenty of forests and other wild areas-the problem was that all the resources were owned. A ruling class had been selected and set of ruling institutions, ideas, and customs had been selected with them, and by the law of "Survival of the Firstest," none could be displaced. Furthermore, not only had the leading roles been chosen, but so had those of the supporting cast and chorus, and there were only so many parts to go around. If you wanted to keep your part, you had to keep your place, and there was no place for someone without a part. The New World changed all that by supplying a place in which there were no established ruling institutions. On such an improvisational stage, the players are not limited to the conventional role of actors-they become playwrights and directors as well. The unleashing of creative talent that such a novel situation allows is not only a great adventure for those lucky enough to be involved, it changes the opinion of the spectators as to the capabilities of actors in general. People who had no role in the old society could define their role in the new. People who did not "fit in" in the Old World could discover and demonstrate that far from being worthless, they were invaluable in the new, whether they journeyed there or not. The New World destroyed the basis of aristocracy and created the basis for democracy. It allowed the development of diversity by allowing escape from those institutions that impose uniformity. It destroyed a closed intellectual world by importing unsanctioned data and experience. It made progress possible by escaping the hold of those institutions whose continued rule required continued stagnation, and it drove progress by defining a situation in which innovation to maximize the capabilities of the limited population available was desperately needed. It raised the dignity of workers by raising the price of labor and by demonstrating for all to see that human beings can be the creators of their world. In America, from Colonial times through the nineteenth century when cities were rapidly being built, people understood that America was not something one simple lived in-it was a place one helped build. People were not simple inhabitants of their world. They were makers of it. A Tale of Two Worlds Consider the probable fate of humanity in the twenty-first century under two conditions: with a Martian frontier and without it. In the twenty-first century, without a Martian frontier, there is no question that human cultural diversity will decline severely. Already, in the late twentieth century, advanced communication and transportation technologies have eroded the healthy diversity of human cultures on Earth. As technology allows us to come closer together, so we come to be more alike. Finding a McDonald's in Beijing, country and western music in Tokyo, or a Michael Jordan T-shirt on the back of an Amazon native is no longer a great surprise. Bringing together diverse cultures can be healthy, as it sometimes results in fusions that produce temporary flowerings in the arts and other areas. It can also result in very unpleasant increases in ethnic tensions. But however the energy released in the cultural merger is expended in the short term, the important thing in the long term is that it is expended. An analogy to cultural homogenization is that of connecting a wire between the terminals of a battery. A lot of heat can be generated for a while, but when all the potentials have been leveled, a condition a maximum entropy is reached and the battery is dead. The classic example of such a phenomenon in human history is the Roman Empire. The golden age produced by unification is frequently followed by stagnation and decline. The tendency toward cultural homogenization on Earth can only accelerate in the twenty-first century. Furthermore, because of rapid communication and transportation technologies "shorting out" inter-cultural barriers, it will become increasingly impossible to obtain the degree of separation required to develop new and different cultures on Earth. If the Martian frontier is opened, however, this same process of technological advance will also enable us to establish a new, distinct, and dynamic branch of human culture on Mars and eventually more on worlds beyond. The precious diversity of humanity can thus be preserved on a broader field, but only on a broader field. One world will be just too small a domain to allow the preservation and continued generation of the diversity needed not just to keep life interesting, but to assure the survival of the human race. Without the opening of a new frontier on Mars, continued Western civilization also faces the risk of technological stagnation. To some this may appear to be an odd statement, as the present age is frequently cited as one of technological wonders. In fact, however, the rate of progress within our society has been decreasing and at an alarming rate. To see this, it is only necessary to step back and compare the changes that have occurred in the past thirty years and the thirty years before that. Between 1906 and 1936 the world was revolutionized: Cities were electrified; telephones and broadcast radio became common; talking motion pictures appeared; automobiles became practical; and aviation progressed from the Wright Flyer to the DC-3 and Hawker Hurricane. Between 1936 and 1966 the world changed again, with the introduction of communication satellites and interplanetary spacecraft; computers; television; antibiotics; nuclear power; Atlas, Titan, and Saturn rockets; Boeing 727s and SR-71s. Compared to these changes, the technological innovations from 1966 to the present seem insignificant. Immense changes should have occurred during this period, but did not. Had we been following the previous sixty years' technological trajectory, we today would have videotelephones, solar-powered cars, maglev (magnetic levitation) trains, fusion reactors, hypersonic intercontinental travel, reliable and inexpensive transportation to Earth orbit, undersea cities, open-sea mariculture, and human settlements on the Moon and Mars. Instead, today we see important technological developments, such as nuclear power and biotechnology, being blocked or enmeshed in controversy-we are slowing down. Now, under a nascent Martian civilization: Its future will depend critically upon the progress of science and technology. Just as the inventions produced by the necessities of frontier America were a powerful driving force on worldwide human progress in the nineteenth century, so the "Martian ingenuity" born in a culture that puts the utmost premium on intelligence, practical education, and the determination required to make real contributions will make much more than its fair share of the scientific and technological breakthroughs, which will dramatically advance the human condition in the twenty-first century. A prime example of the Martian frontier driving new technology will undoubtedly be found in the arena of energy production. As on Earth, an ample supply of energy will be crucial the success of Mars settlements. The Red Planet does have one major energy resource that we currently know about: deuterium, which can be used as the fuel in nearly waste-free thermonuclear fusion reactors. Earth has large amounts of deuterium too, but with all of the existing investments in other, more polluting forms of energy production, the research that would make possible practical fusion power reactors has been allowed to stagnate. The Martian colonists are certain to be much more determined to get fusion on-line, and in doing so will massively benefit the mother planet as well. The parallel between the Martian frontier and that of nineteenth century America as technology drivers is, if anything, vastly understated. America drove technological progress in the last century because its western frontier created a perpetual labor shortage back East, thus forcing the development of labor-saving machinery and providing a strong incentive for improvement of public education so that the skills of the limited work force could be maximized. This condition no longer holds true in America. In fact, far from prizing each additional citizen, anti-immigrant attitudes are on the rise, and a vast "service sector" of bureaucrats and menials is being created to absorb the energies of those parts of the population whose participation in the productive parts of the economy is no longer needed. Thus in the late twentieth century, and increasingly in the twenty-first, each additional citizen is and will be regarded as a burden. On twenty-first century Mars, on the other hand, conditions of labor shortage will apply with a vengeance. Indeed, it can be safely said that no commodity on twenty-first century Mars will be more precious and more highly valued than human labor time. Workers on Mars will be paid more and treated better that their counterparts on Earth, and education will be driven to a higher standard than ever seen on the home planet. Just as the example of nineteenth-century America changed the way the common man was regarded and treated in Europe, so the impact of progressive Martian social conditions may be felt on Earth as well as on Mars. A new standard may be set for a higher form of humanist civilization on Mars, and, viewing it from afar, the citizens of Earth will rightly demand nothing less for themselves. The frontier drove the development of democracy in America by creating a self-reliant population that insisted on the right to self-government. It is doubtful that democracy can persist without such people. True, the trappings of democracy exist in abundance in America today, but meaningful public participation in the process is deeply wanting. Consider that no representative of a new political party has been elected president of the United States since 1860. Likewise, neighborhood political clubs and ward structures that once allowed citizen participation in party deliberations have vanished. And a with reelection rate of 95 percent, the U.S. Congress is hardly a barometer of people's will. Furthermore, regardless of the will of Congress, the real laws, covering ever broader areas of economic and social life, are increasingly being made by a plethora of regulatory agencies whose officials do not even pretend to have been elected by anyone. Democracy in America and elsewhere in Western civilization needs a shot in the arm. That boost can only come from the example of a frontier people whose civilization incorporates the ethos that breathed the spirit into democracy in America in the first place. As Americans showed Europe in the last century, so in the next the Martians can show us the path away from oligarchy and stagnation. There are greater threats that a humanist society faces in a closed world than the return of oligarchy, and if the frontier remains closed, we are certain to face them in the twenty-first century. These threats are the spread of various sorts of anti-human ideologies and the development of political institutions that incorporate the notions that spring from them as a basis of operation. At the top of the list of such destructive ideas that tend to spread naturally in a closed society is the Malthus theory, which holds that since the world's resources are more or less fixed, population growth and living standards must be restricted or all of us will descend into bottomless misery. Malthusianism is scientifically bankrupt-all predictions made upon it have been wrong, because human beings are not mere consumers of resources. Rather, we create resources by the development of new technologies that find use for them. The more people, the faster the rate of innovation. This is why (contrary to Malthus) as the world's population has increased, the standard of living has increased, and at an accelerating rate. Nevertheless, in a closed society Malthusianism has the appearance of self-evident truth, and herein lies the danger. It is not enough to argue against Malthusianism in the abstract-such debates are not settled in academic journals. Unless people can see broad vistas of unused resources in front of them, the belief in limited resources tends to follow as a matter of course. And if the idea is accepted that the world's resources are fixed, then each person is ultimately the enemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of every other race or nation. The extreme result is tyranny, war, and even genocide. Only in a universe of unlimited resources can all men be brothers. Mars Beckons "We have come recently to boast of a global economy without thinking of its implications, of how unfortunate we are in finding it. It would be more cheering if news should come that by some freak of the solar system another world had swung gently into our orbit and moved so close that a bridge could be built over which people could pass to new continents untenanted and seas uncharted. Would those eager immigrants repeat the process they followed when they had that opportunity, or would they redress the grievances of the old earth by a new bill of rights? The availability of such a new planet, at any rate, would prolong, if it did not save, a civilization based on dynamism, and in the prolongation the individual would again enjoy a spell of freedom . . . It would be very interesting to speculate on what the human imagination is going to do with a frontierless world where it must seek its inspiration in uniformity rather than variety, in sameness rather that contrast, in safety rather that peril, in probing the harmless nuances of the known rather than the thundering uncertainties of unknown seas or continents. The dreamers, the poets, and the philosophers are after all but instruments which make vocal and articulate the hopes and aspirations and the fears of the people. The people are going to miss the frontier more than words can express. For four centuries they heard its call, listened to its promise, and bet their lives and fortunes on its outcome. It calls no more . . ." -Walter Prescott Webb, The Great Frontier, 1951 Western humanist civilization as we know and value it today was born in expansion, grew in expansion, and can only exist in a dynamic expanding state. While some form of human society might persist in a nonexpanding world, that society will not foster freedom, creativity, individuality, or progress. Such a dismal future might seem an outrageous prediction, except for the fact that for nearly all of its history most of humanity has been forced to endure such static modes of social organization, and the experience has not been a happy one. Free societies are the exception in human history-aside from isolated pockets, they have only existed during the four centuries of frontier expansion of the West. That history is now over. The frontier opened by the voyage of Christopher Columbus is now closed. If the era of Western humanist society is not to be seen by future historians as some kind of transitory golden age, a brief shining moment in an otherwise endless chronicle of human misery, then a new frontier must be opened. Mars beckons. But Mars is only one planet, and with humanity's powers rising as they would in an age of an open Martian frontier, the job of transforming and settling it is unlikely to occupy our energies for more than three or four centuries. Does the settling of Mars then simply represent an opportunity to prolong, but not save, a civilization based upon dynamism? Isn't it the case that humanist civilization is ultimately doomed anyway? I think not. The universe is vast. Its resources, if we can access them, truly are infinite. During the four centuries of the open frontier on Earth, science and technology have advanced at an astonishing pace. The technological capabilities achieved during the twentieth century would dwarf the expectations of any observer from the nineteenth, exceed the dreams of one from the eighteenth, and appear outright magical to someone from the seventeenth. The nearest stars are incredibly distant, about 10,000 times as far from earth as America is from Europe. If the past four centuries of progress have multiplied our reach by so great a ratio, might not four more centuries of freedom do the same again? There is ample reason to believe they would. Settling the Red Planet will drive the development of ever faster modes of space transportation; terraforming Mars will drive the development of new and more powerful sources of energy. Both of these capabilities in turn will open up new frontiers ever deeper into the outer solar system, and the harder challenges posed by these new environments will drive the two key technologies of power and propulsion ever more forcefully. The key is not to let the process stop. If it is allowed to stop for any length of time, society will crystallize into a static form that is inimical to progress. That is what defines the present age as one of crisis. Our old frontier is closed. The first signs of social stagnation are clearly visible. Yet progress, while slowing is still extant: Our people still believe in it and our ruling institutions are not yet incompatible with it. We still possess the greatest gift of the inheritance of a four-hundred -year-long Renaissance: To wit, the capacity to initiate another by opening the Martian frontier. If we fail to do so, our culture will not have that capacity long. Mars is harsh. Its settlers will need not only technology, but the scientific outlook, creativity, and free-thinking inventiveness that stand behind it. Mars will not allow itself to be settled by people from a static society-those people won't have what it takes. We still do. Mars today waits for the children of the old frontier. But Mars will not wait forever." -The Case for Mars: the Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must, ppg. 295 - 306, Dr. Robert Zubrin with Richard Wagner, 1996

`Copy/Save this graphic and place it on your home page to show your support. Link it to this page for others to read. Thanks. Or Email me and I will send it to you along with a copy of the letter.`

West to Mars welcomes your participation.

Contact Ken Fair for additional information: kenfair@marswest.org

begin your journey from here

back to begin your journey

front page

contributors

West to Mars directory

Resource Links

Why is there a West to Mars Collaborative Project?

National Space Society's Open Letter to President Clinton

Note: Bookmark the last page you visit this tripto more easily continue when you return.

Also, I will be happy to advise you via West to Mars' mailing list as new additions are made.

Just let me know you wish to be added to our mailing list.

Now Available: West to Mars - the Poster

"The graphic... is one of the nicest I have yet to see on any space-related website. It says it all."

`Keith Cowing-Reston Communications`

Significance of the Martian Frontier

Why Humanity Needs Mars

A Tale of Two Worlds

Mars Beckons

Copy/Save this graphic and place it on your home page to show your support. Link it to this page for others to read. Thanks. Or Email me and I will send it to you along with a copy of the letter.

front page contributors West to Mars directory

Now Available: West to Mars - the Poster "The graphic... is one of the nicest I have yet to see on any space-related website. It says it all." Keith Cowing-Reston Communications

`Copy/Save this graphic and place it on your home page to show your support. Link it to this page for others to read. Thanks. Or Email me and I will send it to you along with a copy of the letter.`

front page

contributors

West to Mars directory

Now Available: West to Mars - the Poster

"The graphic... is one of the nicest I have yet to see on any space-related website. It says it all."

`Keith Cowing-Reston Communications`