My point was to question the ethics of leaving people stranded on Mars with no viable way of ever returning to Earth. My comparison to suicide was admittedly extreme. Yet I could imagine any colonisation of Mars to include extreme risks.

Surely a government program for the colonisation of Mars would more likely include some way for people to return to Earth if need be, at least in the initial phase.

Or are we at the point where we would allow people to migrate to Mars in the knowledge they could all die there without the means of escape? I know the expeditions and migrations of old had this risk but this has an added dimension to it.

Some already had walked around the north and got stranded.
Then some Vikings got stranded.
After that Europeans got stranded.
And yet, they got a toehold.

So the sensible thing to do is to get people stranded.
And it will produce films like “Red Lagoon” ...

It took Christopher Columbus (who wasn’t the first to discover North America) about 2 months and some odd days to reach that shore.  He did not know, of course, that he would reach anything since he was only surmising that the world was a round globe but that had not yet been proven. 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_explorer_first_sailed_around_the_southern_tip_of_Africa

Vasco de Gama was the first to sail around Africa (November 1497) and reach India (May 20 1498).

Many endeavors since the beginning of explorations of first man meant no return to the original start, or that they would even survive the journey at all.  Yet all of them went.  Some never did return.

Colonizing Mars or any other planet or asteroid will be many years in the making however.  Too many platforms have to be addressed before any kind of journey can be considered such as providing endless oxygen, suitable medical supplies, the ability to grow food, creating and managing habitats that can endure extremes in both heat and cold, water etc.  By the time these are concrete, there will also be transport options even if the time span forward and back will still be long.

Very likely, before such journeys will become reality, we will have already created subterranean colonies under our seas since that kind of habitat would more nearly mirror those on other planets.

Yes but Christopher Columbus didn’t have a TV audience watching him. I’m just concerned about people getting shocked if they see Martian colonists having emotional problems or running foul of lurking dangers while having no way of escaping. Or should I be more worried about voyeurism in the face of life threatening problems?

I’d never given that even a thought, but now that you bring it up….  Okay, it takes some minutes (I think 15 at least right now) for NASA to have contact with our little guys up there.  So, probably such imagery would take as long to reach ‘headquarters’ for colonists.  I should think some monitoring would be part of the project but not necessarily since colonists would very likely be using video contact on more personal levels too with family and friends back home.

But I thought the idea wasn’t initiated by NASA, rather by a commercial interest that wants to make money by televising it. So it will be like “Jim is slowly dying from an unknown cause. But first a word from our sponsor”.

I don’t like ‘reality tv’ but an enormous population does and will, yes, pay money to have their interest appetites filled.  However, certain controls would still have to be fulfilled.  I’m unsure how soon any of this could possibly happen though and I suspect it will be united countries that will fund and present guidelines for such a venture.  No matter, by the time this is done, I’m also pretty sure other wealthy private interests will make the attempt and may succeed well without any government being a party. 

Anything televised would be up to the audience to participate or not.  Many might, many may not.  It will be newsworthy regardless.

Peter - 13 January 2013 11:35 AM

But I thought the idea wasn’t initiated by NASA, rather by a commercial interest that wants to make money by televising it. So it will be like “Jim is slowly dying from an unknown cause. But first a word from our sponsor”.

This is the part where legal stuff really comes into play. Or at the very least moral implications. You can’t pay to watch people die. Think of the precedent that would set.

wallarookiller - 20 January 2013 03:25 AM

Peter - 13 January 2013 11:35 AM

But I thought the idea wasn’t initiated by NASA, rather by a commercial interest that wants to make money by televising it. So it will be like “Jim is slowly dying from an unknown cause. But first a word from our sponsor”.

This is the part where legal stuff really comes into play. Or at the very least moral implications. You can’t pay to watch people die. Think of the precedent that would set.

But people did sort of do that when public executions were a carnival back in VERY old Europe and old Rome when they traveled long distances (which was costly to them) to see the event and people were and apparently still are, exhilarated by the spectacle of death…........

hulitoons - 20 January 2013 08:28 AM

wallarookiller - 20 January 2013 03:25 AM

Peter - 13 January 2013 11:35 AM

But I thought the idea wasn’t initiated by NASA, rather by a commercial interest that wants to make money by televising it. So it will be like “Jim is slowly dying from an unknown cause. But first a word from our sponsor”.

This is the part where legal stuff really comes into play. Or at the very least moral implications. You can’t pay to watch people die. Think of the precedent that would set.

But people did sort of do that when public executions were a carnival back in VERY old Europe and old Rome when they traveled long distances (which was costly to them) to see the event and people were and apparently still are, exhilarated by the spectacle of death…........

Do you really want to live in a society that delights in the spectacle of death?

Et voila 1939

Very old… *snigger*