Steps to Civilian Lunar Home Rule Authority - A White Paper
by Peter Kokh
© 1999 The Lunar Reclamation Society, Inc.
[Once "Enough People" are Living & Working in Space, on the Moon, or Mars, "the question" will no longer be so easily brushed aside.]
First published as a series of articles in issues #129, 130, 131 (October, November, December 1999) of Moon Miners Manifesto
Part I: Defining "Home Rule" for Settlers on the Space Frontier
A Preamble to the Discussion
Discussing the Political Future and possible Political Regimes under which settlements on the Moon or Mars, or in space itself can grow and thrive on the Space Frontier is a dangerous question. It would seem to be one big can of worms. This is one area in which emotion, temperament, and upbringing often have much more to do with our "worldviews" and expectations than does reason or thoughtful discourse. Any sort of consensus seems remote.
We space supporters come from all political persuasions. Not all of us are Republican, though those who are seem to think so. Not all of us are libertarian anarchists, though those who are seem to think so. Not all of us take it for granted that all of space should be annexed to the United States, new state by new state. But those who do seem to think so.Once there is a critical mass of pioneers on the space frontier, they'll inevitably decide their own future, and the political conditions under which they will live.
I am sure that supporters, in Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal, of the opening of the New World of the Americas, took it for granted that their own national flags would rule forever. They were wrong, and the ultra-patriots amongst us need to take heed. Once (if ever, you sniff) there is a critical mass of pioneers on the space frontier, they will inevitably decide their own future, and the charters or constitutions under which they will live.
To American Patriots who would make the Moon, or a hemisphere of it, the 51st state, we need only remind them that this would make our own Founding Fathers, who fought so hard to free themselves from the British Crown, turn over in their graves. Nothing could be more UnAmerican at its core, than this so-called American solution.
But why, you ask, would governments on Earth put so much money into "colonies", if they knew that they would one day become free? First easy answer is that they are, fortunately for the settlers, too naive to realize this, or think it can be prevented by Enlightened Paternalism. But those who do take the long view will see this support as hopefully paying off in the creation of viable new markets and stable new trading partners that will benefit the homeland.
Whoa! Let's back up a bit! We may never get that far in space. Sure an outpost or too, and some industry, but enough people to make viable nations? We have enough of this ridiculously non-viable little island nation nonsense in the U.N. as it is!
Well, we broached the "ultimate solution" case of independence -- only to show the direction down which this discussion is meant to take the first halting steps. Let's leave for the future what only the future can decide. But that some sort of decision of this sort may someday be inevitable must be kept in mind, as we take first steps.
The First Step: Defining the Conditions, Stages, and Thresholds of Increasing Levels of Settlement Home Rule
Now there's a more pragmatic frame to the questions we propose to discuss - hopefully with considerable input from our readers - in the next issue or two (or however, long it takes) of Moon Miners' Manifesto.
What I am calling for is a discussion that will advance a consensus on what language should be included in a Civilian Enterprise-based Settlement Charter. I was in my twenties when the European "Colonies" in Africa and Asia achieved their independence. I was in England in 1960-1 when the British Home Secretary was charged by the government with coming up with intricate home rule arrangements that "protected" the European Settlers and guaranteed them a voice, even though they were most often a small minority. Some of the resulting agreements were most complex, anything but straight forward. I was a studious observer of it all. And to this day, I remain a firm believer that a horrendous amount of trouble and strife can be avoided by the up front design and adoption of Settlement Charters which spell out how "home rule" "will be automatically granted" in a "step by step fashion" "as listed thresholds" of economic and institutional development and of population and economic growth are reached. If these thresholds are never met, then so what. Everyone knows what the rules are, everyone agrees to them. Political uncertainty is greatly alleviated and in such a climate, economic investment and development, and individual and community planning and life-decisions can be best made.
Part II: The Home Rule Question
Origins of Civilian Rule & a Domestic Economy
First let us say that this discussion is not about the political evolution of "Company Town" settlements. Some see that as the logical, perhaps the only logical situation. I have seen company towns, and the overwhelming majority of them are not healthy places to live no matter how well maintained. It is important that we work to put in place a regime by which all towns are civilian. The best way to do this is by ensuring that towns are begun as multi-party joint ventures, in no one board room's pocket.
- Earth-Moon transportation companies
- mining companies
- materials processing companies
- construction companies
- communications companies
- power utilities
- export-import companies etc.
It would seem more of a stretch of imagination to believe that one and only one company will be all these things than to expect that opening the lunar frontier will be a synergistic affair between several. Even if there is a joint venture between several of the companies involved, there will also be subcontractors and then, Voilà - a civilian situation.
If there is more than one company in town, individuals will have some bargaining power. It will be logical to create a civilian authority separate from any and all companies (not necessarily resistant to pressure) to maintain civil order and regulate the interactions of individuals, some employed here, some there. There would be a constable of sorts and a judicial administrator at least. Some decisions could be telejudicated from Earth, but that won't sit well for long. Even if civilian authorities are appointed by powers on Earth, once there services are needed on a regular basis, it is likely they will be living on the Moon and part of the settlement.
Civilian Authority is not necessarily Home Rule
This by itself is not quite "home rule" - in fact, civilian or not, authority may be quite colonial at first, not even consulting local residents, though that will inexorably invite trouble. The sponsoring national powers on Earth will have their agreed upon policies, (no marriages, no private ownership, etc.) many of them favoring the big companies involved. Resentment of one such policy or another may be the first seed of a drive for more resident responsive government. A resident advisory council is a cheap fix sure to be tried first. The recommendations of an advisory council can be ignored, or met with promises there is no intent to keep. The council would serve its purpose of allowing pioneers to vent off steam and frustrations. But it's a foot in the door.
From such beginnings there would seem to be many milestones on the road to "home rule"
- elected advisory representatives
- elected legislative representatives
- elected executive (mayor, governor)
- local courts
While these are the obvious milestones, do not forget how important a factor a bureaucracy can be with life of its own, even in advanced independent democracies such as our own. It would be most efficient for companies to operate in a paperless fashion on the Moon, exporting all desk work electronically to "cheaper" help Earthside.
This saves people on the Moon for the more productive and constructive tasks and will accelerate the growth of the local economy instead of acting as a drag. But once the settlement is big enough to take over such chores, you can see that it might become an issue, not that local bureaucrats will prove to be anymore responsive and helpful than absentee ones.
What "Home Rule" is and isn't
Home Rule is not independence. The American states have more than home rule. They have sovereignty of a sort. But they are not each independent, they share independence. Puerto Rico has home rule. It can govern its own schools, decide what language will be the currency of public business, pass its own laws, do anything at all except print money and have a military or conduct foreign affairs.
In Robert A. Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and Ben Bova's "Millennium" early lunar outposts went straight for independence. Logically there are intermediate steps, and a steady progress from one through the next is in everyone's interest. Look at what happened to African and other colonies which were summarily freed without preparation and establishment of a sufficient set of local institutions.
The Critical Question
The question is this. Should this process be left to chance, perhaps in the hope it will never happen, or that the settlement will never amount to much? Or should we agree up front on an amendable course of progress with ever greater degrees of home rule granted as the settlement reached pre-agreed goals of population growth, economic and industrial diversification, effective self-sufficiency in education and health care, so many months stockpiles of critical reserves of parts, fuels, food, etc., such and such progress towards breakeven between exports and imports? We've seen untold strife in the 60's and since because of the lack of such pre-agreements. We need not make that mistake on the Moon, Mars or anywhere else.
Part III: A Pre-Settlement Charter for the Moon?
A Lunar Constitution is quite a ways down the road. What we are proposing is to prepare a trial "pre-settlement charter" for any prospective outpost that could conceivably become a full-fledged settlement, spelling out stages of "activation" by which "x" amount of growth and "y" steps of achievement will be rewarded by increasing degrees of local control.
Outposts will hopefully be in the plural. And if they are, they will be like seeds sown elsewhere. Some will fall on barren ground, fail to germinate or sprout, and become ghost towns. Others will sprout up but not flower. A few may self-propagate into full fledged settlements, even becoming real cities. Is this unrealistic? We think not.
Those who demand that lunar settlements justify their existence on the basis of "one product" before we consent to proceed further without the government holding our hand and picking up the tab, are proposing a test that has been demanded of no settlement before. [We think of Gordon Woodcock's pessimistic assessment of lunar industrial potential a few years back as well as of the NSS challenge for papers for ISDC 2000 which seems to buy into several unjustified and unmentioned assumptions. Engineers and lawyers make good money, not good economics.]
Ninety percent of any economy is domestic, powered by the production of goods and services for local consumption. Would it have made sense to hold up the ships bound for the Americas unless the would-be pioneers could first prove that they had one and only one product in mind that they could make in the New World and export back to England or Spain in enough quantity to earn shipment back to them of all their needs and supplies? That is the a priori test some would apply to any commercial for-profit lunar enterprise. It is best just to ignore it, not trying to prove what they cannot understand. Just do it.
Back to that ninety percent. Of the remaining exported sum of goods and services, another ninety percent will be to other space markets (not unlike U.S. to Canada and other North and South American nations as opposed to mother England). The lunar economy will grow apace with the economy in LEO and perhaps apace of efforts to tap asteroid resources and efforts to open the Martian Frontier. Only the combined space economy as a whole must pay its way with a positive trade balance with Earth. And in that equation, LEO is part of the space economy. With terracing and step by step industrial and commercial diversification, we see no reason why the Moon itself cannot someday support a population of hundreds of thousands, or more. In contrast, those who forget (or never learned) how economies are put together can only foresee highly subsidized outposts of a few dozen people at best. And the extent of their activism is to get "George" Government to pick up the tab.
Charters for a Plurality of Settlements
Already some will have realized that we must address two questions, not one.
- when should an outpost on the road to becoming a settlement be granted how much local rule, and
- when does the entity we are dealing with cease to be individual settlements and become a self organizing frontier association of settlements?
My suggestion a few years back that independence was something that should be considered only for a multi-setllement frontier that by virtue of its plurality had put itself on the road to global occupation of the Moon or Mars was greeted with derision by Jim Davidson. But in the light of all the unviable island entities we have recently welcomed into the United Nations, is this an unreasonable standard?
It is much less likely that stand-alone lunar settlements could achieve economic self-sufficiency than a cooperative interdependent, intertrading association of settlements. That's just common sense.
In the ranks of space activism, we have always had a strong anarchist-libertarian constituency for whom space is attractive primarily because it opens up the possibility of just such a proliferation of small independent worldlet principalities thumbing their noses and right middle fingers at the rest of the universe and at economic reality. Historically, however, dictatorship becomes more likely in proportion to the economic absurdity involved. Big does not always mean tyranny. Small doesn't always guarantee freedom. The settlers will decide this issue for themselves. It is not ours to get hot and bothered about.
On Earth, "one world" and "one world government" are seen as the only rational option by some, and as the most diabolical of solutions by others. But here individual nations and tribes have history and inertia. On the Moon or Mars, where we are "starting over, starting fresh", and where the enemy may be off-planet rather than on, the pioneers will find themselves free to take a second, no baggage look.
Higher Goals and Economic Reality
Meanwhile it makes sense for us to encourage settlements and outposts to seek economic viability in association with one another, not separately. A properly defined and terraced (sequenced) set of milestones defined in a charter agreement will reach a level of demand that may be very difficult (though not impossible) for a solitary settlement to reach, but within the easier, timelier grasp of a cooperative association of settlements. Two examples:
- a full-fledged university
- a major hospital
That the settlement(s) will be both educationally and medically selfsufficient are reasonable standards for higher levels of "home rule" activation.
In todays world, which is getting ever more complex, it is estimated it takes a city of a quarter million people to produce 95% of its own needs. On the other hand, it is not necessary to produce all your own needs, only to produce enough to sell to earn the money with which to buy everything else.
It is reasonable for the sponsoring powers and agencies to demand attainment of a certain demonstrated level of sustainable economic viability, before agreeing to remove all supervision and oversight. Even today, many nations must surrender the exercise of certain sovereign prerogatives to meet the demands of World Bank lenders. Actually, "independence" is an illusion. As the economies of all nations continue to globalize, "inter"dependence is what we enjoy, whether we wish to admit it or not.
Back to the Question:
Do we begrudge the pioneers their political autonomy, fighting them every step of the way, thus forcing them to win their rights in a test of power, management-union style? Some, by temperament and prejudice, will prefer, counsel, and demand such a strategy in the hopes of securing financial self-interest as long as possible, delaying the inevitable..
OR, do we lay out a roadmap, locate the milestones, and declare the rewards of attaining each. If the proper role of government is to provide a fair set of rules and a level playing field on which all free persons can pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" without further interference, then such "roadmap charters" with staged phases of automatic home rule activation fall within that enlightened mandate. Brainstorming the possible particulars, the forks in the roads, and what prerequisites must be met for each higher stage of home rule is a project in which I invite all interested readers to participate.
If we leave this to government, we guarantee a nonsensical result. Nothing rational can be produced when political compromise over non germane issues is the prevailing standard of agreement. That is why we have a shuttle that is less capable than it could be, and are getting a station of similar mongrel breed.
Nor is it in the proven area of demonstrated corporate talents to come up with such documents. This must be the work of a pioneering people. We who would prepare the way for the actual pioneers, are those pioneering people. We must do it, or it will not be done, with the chaos of anarchy the likely result.
A word to contrary minds
We have asked a question, and we know that many will answer in the negative. Those who identify with company management may tend to see the pioneers as employees and consider "home rule" measures as something they should have to bargain for in a test of wills and power. As one who has spent many years in industry, I feel that the arrogance of management is the principal demotivating cause of poor employee performance. The attitude is counter-productive from the start. But why argue if you are a mind-made-up proponent of the opposite view. Most pioneers may be "employees". But when it comes to civilian rights, it gets no one anywhere to reduce them to that. It solves nothing to start off with the same stupid "adversarial mentality" we find in management labor relations in this country.
Let them earn it, you say. I say so too. But then it is fair to preagree on what performance earns what rewards. If circumstances and situations change and show that the "schedule of progress" is unrealistic, too fast, too slow, too jerky, whatever, there should be a proper means of amending it.
In the past, in all situations of political process I know of, especially throughout the whole global decolonization period, every step had to be negotiated - or fought. There has always been a succession of regimes, of charters, of constitutions.
I suggest that this is neither necessary nor advisable. One charter could do it all if it is fully and clearly spelled out that these conditions being met, this would be the degree of home rule. Make more progress toward pre-agreed goals, get greater degrees of self government including the right to establish a bill of rights, a division of powers, and other features we normally relegate to a constitution.
Should the outpost never become more than that, no problem - it's all spelled out. Everyone knows the rules. If a settlement comes into its own and thrives and spreads beyond expectation, the charter provisions are in place to guide it. Revolutions of independence can be avoided. They cause a lot of damage that can take decades to undo.
The foregoing is just a generalized expression of the approach I think we need to take. There are a lot of unanswered questions. We can start identifying the questions, not trying to answer them right away. And I hope that many of you readers will get involved and help identify more questions, more problems, more possible approaches. Who knows maybe we can produce something.
We are not yet talking constitutions, nor yet discussing a Bill of Rights, nor the division of powers nor how the legislature be constituted - we can eventually propose and advise, leaving it to the pioneers to choose. What we are doing here is brain-storming presettlement charters that will govern the pioneers' political progress towards maturity.
Part IV: Self Sufficiency Test and Goals
We've already hinted at some not directly economic things that might be considered as bench marks of pioneer and frontier achievement "meriting increased home rule":
- increases in population, e.g.: 100, 300, 1000, 5000, 25000, 100,000, 250,000, one million
- educational capacity: K12, technical college, full university (list of critical departments), degree of involvement of the university in creation of new enterprise and in increased industrial diversification, involvement in arts and craft media development, fractional gravity-sensitive performing arts, etc.
- medical capacity:
- capacity to treat most trauma, common diseases, pediatrics, maternity ward, etc.
- advanced capacity: neurosurgery, oncology, etc. (advances counted in reduction of the percentage of cases that must either be sent to hospitals on Earth or left to die as comfortably as possible.)
- medical advances in the area of lunar-peculiar medical problems
- progression from an all worker society towards the normal mix of working adults, children, and seniors given productive roles suited to their slowly diminishing capacities
- progression from a one settlement operation to an actively intertrading association of frontier communities with consequent growth both in domestic and export economies
- increases in the ratio of native Earthborn individuals electing to stay in comparison to those still rotating back to Earth
- increases in the proportion of native born Lunans
- ongoing assessment of the comparative health of native born Lunans over several generations
- diversity of the gene pool (another article)
Part V: Balance of Trade Questions
The following additional items are vital because they affect the economic viability equation:
- stockpiles of critical imported reserves (volatiles not yet produced in enough quantity locally, emergency food rations, parts for essential equipment, backup power units, etc. etc.) e.g.: 6 months reserves, 12 months, two years
- increases in percentage of architectural and building products and units manufactured on the Moon versus imported from Earth (increases in the degree by which population expansion can be wholly supported locally)
- increases in the percentage of food and other agricultural products grown locally both in terms of total tonnage and in diversity (progress towards a locally supported diversified foods menu)
- increases in percentage of total mass of products manufactured on the Moon in comparison to the total mass of products that must be imported from Earth (reductions in import dependency)
- increases in the number, relative worth, and deferred import value of new lunar sourced "substitution products" to replace items that had been imported from Earth because equivalent products could not be manufactured from commonly available lunar materials
- increasing levels of industrial and commercial diversification (economic insurance against the vulnerabilities of one export product economies)
- increases in the percentage of exports sold to other space markets (including LEO and GEO) in relation to those sold directly to Earth.
- increases in the diversification of products sold to other space markets
- increases in the percentage of imports from other space markets in comparison to those coming from Earth (these last three considerations will indicate the degree of integration of the Lunar economy into an emerging wider solar system economy extra terrestrial sector.)
- growth of a local machine tool industry
- growth of a local electronics industry
- growing percentage of surface vehicles, for out-vac and in-habitat use with majority (by mass) content locally manufactured
- growth of spacecraft servicing and reoutfitting capacity
Part VI: A Bill of Rights for Space Frontier Communities
What can we take for granted?
No part of the U.S. Constitution seems more quintessential to our way of life than the "Bill of Rights". Yet actually, it was an afterthought. After the rest of the language of the Constitution had been drawn up and met with the framers consensus, all the questions about the structure of the government and the division of powers seemed to have been answered. Then it was noticed that the document did not address the relationship of citizens to one another or to the government. The absence of a statement on these rights was handled by a set of ten amendments. The Constitution with these first ten amendments was then voted on and approved as a package.
Lesson learned, framers of any space frontier constitution need to address individual rights in the same package as they attend to organizational matters and the division of jurisdictions and the schedule for achievement-triggered levels of autonomy. But it may not be so simple a matter of just tacking on our own Bill of Rights.
First of all, these present ten amendments have led to two centuries of legal squabbles about how literally or freely they must be interpreted. There will be many calls for rewriting them in language that is clearer about the intent in which they are to be each applied. We will bring up some of the points most in contention.
Secondly, some of the succeeding amendments further clarified individual rights. And Supreme Court interpretations have generally served to strengthen individual rights against those who were happier with those rights being unestablished.
More to the point, on the Space Frontier we will be dealing with the rights of people in a wholly new, unprecedented, and never imagined set of circumstances which arguably changes everything.
For the first time we will be talking about individuals who do not live in a pre-given world-wide life-sustaining biosphere. We will be talking about the rights of individuals living in artificially established and maintained mini-biospheres that are local in character, and outside of which, whether on hostile planetary surfaces, or in the void of space itself, life cannot be sustained. Such situations have never previously existed. Thus they have never been addressed. It is the writer's contention, that the "Space Frontier Condition" changes everything, to one extent or the other.
No government on Earth need guarantee, either in its constitution or in subsequent legislation, the right to air, water, sufficient heat so as not to freeze to death, and even food. Except in the most extreme weather, most people can survive out in the open for quite some time, even indefinitely. On the outside you will still find air to breath, water to drink and, if you know how to forage and/or hunt, food. The resourceful person can also find warmth. Put outside the airlock, without the provision of countermeasures, no one can long survive on the space frontier. We're all in it together, and our common humanity decrees we all have rights that it never occurred to anyone to define and guarantee.
On the space frontier the distinction between "indoors" and "outdoors" lists the options neither accurately nor completely. There is a great gray area which from one point of view is "outside" - at least outside individual private of public structures, and which from another point of view is "inside" - inside the biosphere containment hull, shell, dome, or whatever preserves the common life-sustaining barrier against the exterior vacuum or unbreathably thin and/or unbreathably composed alien atmosphere. Both inside and outside become ambiguous.
Nearly thirteen years ago, in MMM # 5, MAY '87, we introduced the term "middoors" for common spaces within the Biosphere containment shell as opposed to "indoor" spaces within private homes and private and wall-defined buildings, etc. Later, we introduced the word "out-vac" (modeled, of course, after the Australian word "outback") for the airless environment outside the biosphere airlocks. [On Mars we might substitute the word "out-gasp" :-) ]
Although I can think of a lot of people who'd be excluded by their "devil-take-the-hindmost-because-I-know-how-to-get-mine" mentality, it would seem to me that most reasonable people would come to agree that we must address three things:
an individual's right to remain within a biosphere, once he/she is in, with the burden of finding alternative residence possibly resting upon the biosphere's authorities
an individual's right to be homeless within a biosphere's common middoor spaces, with the burden of finding alternative residence possibly resting on the biosphere's authorities
an individual's right to basic life-sustaining utilities within a private residence whether or not he/she can afford to pay for them
Now we can discuss all we want where rights end and responsibilities begin. But we must never forget that we are not talking about Earth. We all strongly prefer to have only responsible, industrious, contributing citizens on the space frontier - no dead-weight, thank you. But we've all heard, and hopefully had the occasion to say with sincerity the humbling phrase "There, but for the Grace of God, go I!" While not all of us have ever been "down and out", we all know that someday we could be. On the space frontier that is a condition enormously more threatening. Unless we establish a regime of rights and responsibilities to address unfortunate circumstances.
Now a constitution might keep its language general and simply state that any individual has the right to remain within a settlement's biosphere pending the location of a non-life-threatening option; that any individual has status within the settlement's middoor commons without restriction to those having established indoor residences; that any individual has the right to minimal hook-up biospheric utility service to his/her place of residence. The P's and Q's and the crossing of the T's and dotting of the i's can be left to subsequent legislation. But here is a list of "life-sustaining' services and rights that I will throw out to get the discussion going:
- no cost "indoor" temperature control within the range set for middoor common spaces, e.g., free heating up to 50 °F or 10 °C and free cooling down to 85 °F or 30 °C (arguable but reasonable)
- basic "safety" level lighting
- fresh water in (a "reasonable" ration), waste water removal
- fresh air in ("reasonable" rate of flow ration), stale air out
- access to food at both no and low cost
- right to grow food in community gardens
- right to "staples" and a share of "seconds"
- right to minimum outbound communications
- free phone calls to public officials, health authorities, emergency hot lines
- business subsidized free calls to advertisers
- caller-paid incoming calls
- right to volume-rationed free storage for personal effects
- right to rationed-access public bathing/shower facilities/laundry
- right for traditional or non-traditional family groups to be relocated together
- limited right to education, training, retraining
- limited right to handicap challenge training
- limited right to entrepreneurial technical / business assistance
- right to occupational services, retraining
- right to basic educational services
- right to universal service training and placement opportunities
These provisions are aimed at minimizing as far as possible the number of settlement "residents at large" with no home other than the middoor streets and parks and other common spaces. Finding ways to keep people in homes and with access to the means of getting back on their feet is in everyone's interest.
Other Issues - comments on basic freedoms
Part VII: For "Strangers in a Strange Land", a "Right" of Repatriation?
Does anyone know him/herself truly well enough to volunteer to be a "one-way" space pioneer? Should immigrants have a right of repatriation with guaranteed free passage back to Earth, should it become clear that they just can't handle frontier life? How would reserves to pay for this be set aside?
Every effort must be made to exclude those likely to fail; to be sure those still willing enter into this with eyes wide open. On past frontiers, the immigrants gave up the old country, relatives, friends, property, etc. They did not give up Earth, its blue skies, the green grass and forests, the fresh air, outdoor activities - in short they have never before given up life in the Mothering Earth Biosphere.
There is much "romance" in the notion of pioneering new worlds. We must do everything possible to minimize this romance if we are not going to end up with a lot of disillusioned and mutinous settlers. People have to know what they're giving up. And they have to be confident that what they are gaining is worth it; to believe that they will have every opportunity to make steady improvements in harsh living conditions. Would the right to return home, prepaid be an effective safety valve to diffuse trouble? Or would this safety valve work instead to encourage people to try, when really they are not suited?
The likeliest scenario is that the first space pioneers will be persons who have gone out to work, with no intention of staying. Among those who agree to stay on will be some who have fallen in love with the frontier, eventually becoming so comfortable with their new life that they are ready to give up the right of return for a "buy-in" into the frontier as a citizen. But should the Earth-based employer decide to pull up stakes, leaving the starter community high and dry and unviable, they might be required to offer free repatriation as an "ultimate assurance".
Once a settlement is begun with former on site temporary employees, the opportunity for direct immigration from Earth will arise. Here, volunteers, job contracts in hand, will be making "for keeps" decisions without actual experience of frontier life, even if they have passed their "frontier orientation simulations" with flying colors. If hiring companies are involved in the orientation and simulation as "assurance" against recruiting unsuitable persons, then they should be able to purchase "insurance" to pay the cost of return of the hopefully few pioneers who will fail despite all their best intentions.
Now for Lunan pioneers, this cost will be modest relative to the cost of repatriating Martian pioneers. This is a plus for having frontier opening experience under our belt on the Moon first.
Part VIII: The Settlement as an Intentional Community
We know the origins of some of Earth's cities and towns. For most others, their origins are lost in the myths of time. Yet with few exceptions (planned capital cities like Washington, Brasilia, Islamabad, Canberra, etc.) cities have grown haphazardly, with no force shaping them other than topography (coasts and rivers, mountains, etc.) and the fortuitous conjunction of economic forces and fortunes.
Of "Xities" and "Reclamation"
In our series on extraterrestrial settlements MMM's #s 52-60, we coined a new word for communities that do not arise in a preexisting global biosphere, but which have to provide, and maintain, mini-biospheres of their own, with no forgiving "sinks" to act as buffers for environmental irresponsibilities. The word we offered was "Xity", "X" standing for "exo", of course, but pronounced hard: KSIH tee, not ek sih tee. We want the word pronounced in two syllables, like city, not three. The hard sound is a clue to the unprecedentedly difficult task that any/all settlements beyond Earth's cradling and coddling planet-wide biosphere must face.
Dutch towns below sea level come closest as a model. Their protective dikes holding back the tides and surges of the sea must be religiously maintained. The dike is an analog of the seamless pressure hulls of space settlements (modular or megastructure). The pressure hulls in effect "reclaim" from the seas of space, vacuum, and cosmic radiation, formerly "inundated lands" that are now made fertile, capable of supporting life. As we've said before, "reclamation" is job one for any space frontier settlement, a job that never ends. With eternal maintenance and vigilance, the reclaimed area hopefully will increase in size, fertility, productivity, and population.
Education Responsibilities in Fragile Biospheres
This "defining" "task one", means that the settlement cannot take a laissez faire attitude about the environmental education of its citizens, when it comes to awareness of their shared vulnerability and the responsibilities that each must assume as his or her own. The critical difference between the global biosphere that terrestrial cities take for granted, and the local mini-biospheres that space frontier settlements cannot ever take for granted, is that the latter have no massive "sinks" to buffer the effects of environmental sins and episodes of carelessness. On Earth, we mess up and it affects our grandchildren. Out there, we mess up and it's all over. The pioneers will live immediately downwind and downstream from themselves. Everyone, not just some, must care.
Whatever other educational freedoms are guaranteed, all citizens must know, and understand, how their biospheres work: how the air is kept fresh and recycled, how the water is kept free of pollutants and recycled, how vegetation is to be cherished and cultivated, and more. A part of this common education will be to provide a menu of chores suitable for children, with some degree of rotation, so that everyone has basic familiarity with all the biosphere's systems. And when they come of age, a year or two of universal service running the air and water plants and the agriculture areas would instill an even deeper sense of "ownership" and better citizenship.
And that is what each settlement must seek to instill: a sense of ownership of the systems and the fragile balances that make community life possible beyond Earth. The test of this appreciation is the degree to which it appropriately affects individual micro-economic decisions as well as environment-relevant housekeeping habits, public and domestic.
Economic Health of Citizens
Space frontier towns will be hard pressed to survive unless a much higher fraction of their populations are productive than seems acceptable on Earth. Health priorities must be turned around with emphasis on expectant mothers, infants, children, and seniors with good years left in them. It will not work to take a hands off attitude on prevention and then plow inappropriate resources into remediation.
For economic productivity, the same is true. Every effort must be made to equip every citizen with all the tools and knowledge each can use to become as productive and creative as their individual talents and aptitudes will allow. Being relaxed about education and then having to plow major resources into welfare etc. will not work. The settlement cannot thrive unless each citizen is offered the best individually tailored education, not just a basic one.
The University system especially must be geared to work with would-be entrepreneurs in development of new products for domestic consumption and/or the export trade, to maximize the economic self-sufficiency of the settlement.
Just "retiring" seniors will make no sense. Putting them to work on new tasks such as educating the young and taking care of much of the administrative load will prolong their usefulness and self-satisfaction, while relieving those in the prime of life for tasks related to production and trade.
On the space frontier, many things we have always taken for granted on Earth, must become the object of concerted "Intentional" Communal Effort. The upshot is a linkage of citizen rights, on the one hand, and of duties and responsibilities on the other The former must be guaranteed, the latter must be mandated, by the Settlement charter.
NOTE: There are other debates about rights that I have not mentioned. Call (414-342-0705 - 7am - 9pm Central) or email me about glaring "omissions."
This Paper is Necessarily a "Work in Progress" and the above was a first installment in that effort during the Fall of 1999.