A Rhetorical Question about Space Colonies

[DestroidDefender]

If people can enjoy the quality of life seen in Macross 7 & Macross Frontier while living on the fleet, why bother trying to find and setup planet bound colonies? Sure there will be a few people like Alto who want to live under a real sky, but what about the vast majority who have a comfortable happy life just as they are? Why would they want to leave Frontier to live in prefab hut in a muddy field?

Just a thought I had while enjoying MacF. My other question was why allow macronized Zentraedi - but that's being discussed in another thread.

[dizman]

Hmm theres a term for it (I think Manifest Destiny but I'm not sure). In a way people just have to go out and explore and experience new and difficult challenges, it's our nature. As for why colonize other planets, that way you have another base of operations for the next 20 colonization ships to leave from (such as Eden).

[VFTF1]

I think we also have to realize that what we see of civilian life on MF is just a portion of it.

I mean - Sheryll even notes in episode five that the city looks beautiful from above because you "can't see the slums."

There are always people whose lot is not as good as they'd like it to be and who might be eager to "start over" and seek their fortune on a new colony world.

Also - colony worlds no doubt are a source of raw materials and minerals. Even though MF is a "recyling" ship, the narrator does not say that it is 100% self-sufficient; just that it needs "minimal reloading" - so clearly there is still an important roll to be played by colony worlds.

I understand the main thrust of the question - and I think the answer is: write some fanfiction exploring migration in the Macross universe

VFTF1

[Mr March]

Most science fiction, Macross included, has a general bias toward planet-based habitation. The reason for it is obvious; all the writers of science fiction live on a planet. Plenty of science fiction creators place the action on planets or give importance to planets for various reasons. Dystopia stories or disaster stories often take advantage of the fact we cannot yet permanently live off-world and thus the fate of the human race is tied to the fate of the planet. Obviously, environmental subtexts and messages in science fiction also benefit from a pro-planet bias and Kawamori's fiction is littered with environmental themes. This is not necessarily a bad thing; some of science fiction's greatest writers have explored the ecology of planets and environmental themes in the greatest of science fiction literature, such as Frank Herbert's Dune

Having said that, I do feel the obsession with planets in science fiction does at times promote creative limitations. I think some of the most exciting new directions in science fiction have been those stories that explore more exotic habitats, such as Niven's Ringworld series or the work of Iain M Bank's Culture Universe. Particularly in Bank's Culture civilization, few people live on planets any more and instead live inside GSV (really big spacecraft) or on Orbitals (ringworlds).

Ultimately, planets are no different than any other habitat. All areas suitable for human habitation are essentially bubbles in space that allow life to exist among a massive universe of vacuum. The difference is some bubbles are larger and more comfortable than others and planets are some of, if not the biggest habitats around in most science fiction. Building artificial planets or habitats as large and comfortable as planets is typically beyond the technology of most civilizations in sci-fi (though Macross may be one such exception, since the Factory Satellite represents a mega structure larger than our moon).

Once technology progresses to a certain point and the problems of power and material scarcity are solved to a large degree (which is partially true in the Macross universe) I can actually see people not only living indefinitely on artificial habitats but actually having a bias against planet habitation. Think about it. Habitable planets, though largely stable, are also dangerous. They have chaotic weather patterns, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, they have dangerous wildlife and ecosystems that produces toxic vegetation and poisonous insects. Temperature varies and half the time half of the planet is in total darkness. To someone used to artificial habitation, planets can be downright awful places to live. In Macross, places like Island 1 or City 7 are comfortable, safe environments to live. As long as you like the city, why not live your life there. And if you were born in Island 1 or City 7, you'd have just as much affinity for it as any other terrestrial home.

This reminds me of an exchange I remember from some science fiction story I read years ago. It went something like this:

Human: Look at this place: it's cold, dirty, and ugly. I hate planets.

Alien: Didn't your people originally come from a planet?

Human: Yeah, the smart ones left.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Mr March

[VFTF1]

That covnersation might be a recurrent theme in much Sci Fi... but I was about to write something very similar... does it by chance come from Asimov's Robots of Dawn? There was much bias against people who actually still lived on Earth which had become a wreck...although the alternative were newly colonized planets...

Anyways - yeah - as usual Mr. March speaks the truth

VFTF1

[lord_breetai]

If people can enjoy the quality of life seen in Macross 7 & Macross Frontier while living on the fleet, why bother trying to find and setup planet bound colonies? Sure there will be a few people like Alto who want to live under a real sky, but what about the vast majority who have a comfortable happy life just as they are? Why would they want to leave Frontier to live in prefab hut in a muddy field?

From what we've seen in Macross 7, the colony just lands, the bubbles come off and the city becomes the instant captial of the new world. Frontier has enough mini-cities to instantly make a small sized country, so it's not like people would be giving up any quality of life. And people would have more freedom.

Hmm theres a term for it (I think Manifest Destiny but I'm not sure). In a way people just have to go out and explore and experience new and difficult challenges, it's our nature. As for why colonize other planets, that way you have another base of operations for the next 20 colonization ships to leave from (such as Eden).

Manifest Destiny was more the idea that the US should bring Democracy to all the world, forcefully if need be.

I think we also have to realize that what we see of civilian life on MF is just a portion of it.

I mean - Sheryll even notes in episode five that the city looks beautiful from above because you "can't see the slums."

There are always people whose lot is not as good as they'd like it to be and who might be eager to "start over" and seek their fortune on a new colony world.

Also - colony worlds no doubt are a source of raw materials and minerals. Even though MF is a "recyling" ship, the narrator does not say that it is 100% self-sufficient; just that it needs "minimal reloading" - so clearly there is still an important roll to be played by colony worlds.

I understand the main thrust of the question - and I think the answer is: write some fanfiction exploring migration in the Macross universe

VFTF1

Definitely after all Akusho was very much a slum... it wasn't even officially a part of the fleet though.

Once technology progresses to a certain point and the problems of power and material scarcity are solved to a large degree (which is partially true in the Macross universe) I can actually see people not only living indefinitely on artificial habitats but actually having a bias against planet habitation. Think about it. Habitable planets, though largely stable, are also dangerous. They have chaotic weather patterns, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, they have dangerous wildlife and ecosystems that produces toxic vegetation and poisonous insects. Temperature varies and half the time half of the planet is in total darkness. To someone used to artificial habitation, planets can be downright awful places to live. In Macross, places like Island 1 or City 7 are comfortable, safe environments to live. As long as you like the city, why not live your life there. And if you were born in Island 1 or City 7, you'd have just as much affinity for it as any other terrestrial home.

Well that's one think I think Robotech did well... in the Robotech novels there were lots of younger people in the REF that disdained planets, thought they were dirty, foul things and didn't see why the high command was so sentimental about freeing Earth.

At any rate, I do think a planet would be more defensible then a MF or M7 type of floating colony. Enemies can just fold in and attack from any angle, where if the colony has landed on a planet, then the enemy has to come in, get past the orbital defense and breach that atmosphere before they can attack the colonies citizens. I think Macross 7, did show how the landing on lux was a mixed blessing... had they not been totally boxed in by a numerically superior foe, and had the battleships been space born before the Varuta attacked then I would think we would have seen how it totally would have worked to the UNS' advantage.

Also if the Varuta didn't have Protodevelin that would have changed things too.

[Batou]

...

At any rate, I do think a planet would be more defensible then a MF or M7 type of floating colony. Enemies can just fold in and attack from any angle, where if the colony has landed on a planet, then the enemy has to come in, get past the orbital defense and breach that atmosphere before they can attack the colonies citizens. I think Macross 7, did show how the landing on lux was a mixed blessing... had they not been totally boxed in by a numerically superior foe, and had the battleships been space born before the Varuta attacked then I would think we would have seen how it totally would have worked to the UNS' advantage.

...

If Space War 1 taught us anything, it's that you can blast the snot out of your enemy from orbit if you can obtain orbital supremacy. (only way to be sure ). No need to muck with reentry at all. If a big bad fleet of unfriendly Zentradi show up (or whatever), at least the colony can fold itself out of harm's way.

I can't see these colonies being enough to sustain a huge population long term, though. Regular use eventually destroys everything in time, so they can't be permanent settlements.

[RichterX]

Manifest Destiny was more the idea that the US should bring Democracy to all the world, forcefully if need be.

Will only reply to that.

It was the belief that the United States had to expand from the Atlantic to the Pacific to cover as much of the North American continent as possible. Had nothing to do with democracy.

[lord_breetai]

Will only reply to that.

It was the belief that the United States had to expand from the Atlantic to the Pacific to cover as much of the North American continent as possible. Had nothing to do with democracy.

ahem, yes well there is Manifest Destiny, and there is manifest destiny.

It was revived in the 1890s, this time with Republican supporters, as a theoretical justification for U.S. expansion outside of North America. The term fell out of usage by U.S. policy makers early in the 20th century, but some commentators believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny, particularly the belief in an American "mission" to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.

Doing a lot of study on Asian history in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Manifest Destiney definitely was linked to the idea that the US was this great beacon of democracy and it was obviously their fate, to to bring it to the rest of the world. Also see the concept of "the house on a hill" which is the belief that the US is the great beacon of Christianity and that it must be brought to the outside world.

The point is that they are specficially american terms, and can't much be applied in the current circumstances.

[lord_breetai]

If Space War 1 taught us anything, it's that you can blast the snot out of your enemy from orbit if you can obtain orbital supremacy. (only way to be sure ). No need to muck with reentry at all. If a big bad fleet of unfriendly Zentradi show up (or whatever), at least the colony can fold itself out of harm's way.

I can't see these colonies being enough to sustain a huge population long term, though. Regular use eventually destroys everything in time, so they can't be permanent settlements.

Only works if you want to destroy the people on the planet, if you want to conquer them you have to come down and get your hands dirty.

And Again there would be orbital defenses.

[Mr March]

I fail to see how an immobile asset would ever be as defensible as mobile assets. It's a universal law in all warfare that mobile beats immobile, all other factors being equal.

[lord_breetai]

I fail to see how an immobile asset would ever be as defensible as mobile assets. It's a universal law in all warfare that mobile beats immobile, all other factors being equal.

Well first off... who says the colony ships can't launch again if they need to once they've landed? and it's also a simple fact that in space you can be attacked from any possible angle along either x or y axis. where on solid ground you can dig in and fortify... and while you can still possibly be attacked from any of 360 degrees on the x-axis (depending on terrain such as mountains, and so on) you only have to worry what's above you, not bellow you. Therefore you have less of a perimeter to defend.

[Mr March]

Huh? Planets are in space. They are assailable from the same directions as any other object floating in space. Okay, let's make it simpler; you have the Factory Satellite and the moon, both in the same category of stellar body size. One can fold, the other can't. All other factors being equal (defenses, fleets, weapons), the Factory Satellite is the superior asset to have in any military sense because it is mobile while the moon is not.

[eugimon]

Huh? Planets are in space. They are assailable from the same directions as any other object floating in space. Okay, let's make it simpler; you have the Factory Satellite and the moon, both in the same category of stellar body size. One can fold, the other can't. All other factors being equal (defenses, fleets, weapons), the Factory Satellite is the superior asset to have in any military sense because it is mobile while the moon is not.

Yup. Not to mention that fleets in the Macross Universe are so huge that they can just bombard the entire planet. Not having to worry about somebody shooting from below you doesn't matter if your entire atmosphere catches on fire.

[Gubaba]

Huh? Planets are in space. They are assailable from the same directions as any other object floating in space. Okay, let's make it simpler; you have the Factory Satellite and the moon, both in the same category of stellar body size. One can fold, the other can't. All other factors being equal (defenses, fleets, weapons), the Factory Satellite is the superior asset to have in any military sense because it is mobile while the moon is not.

...unless Space 1999 ever magically comes true.

It seems to me that there's a fallacy in this argument, which is that the emigration fleets stop permenantly at the planets they find, whereas it seems more likely that the stay long enough to get a settlement started, and then go off again.

Gubaba's planet was certainly habitable, but the 7 fleet didn't stop there...their goal was the Galactic Center, which would probably have no planets able to sustain life (or exist for very long). Since it was a "long-range colonization fleet," what's the point of heading to an area unable to be colonized, unless you're seeding planets along the way?

EDIT: Whoops, left out my main point...which is that the Macross universe would then have planetary bases AND semi-permanant colony ships. The best of both worlds, if you will.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Gubaba

[Fade Rathnik]

Ok so if they can get some the size of the moon to fold why not a planet at that point, c'mon its only 6 times more mass. Sorry thread needed some humor

[Mr March]

That's the point gubaba. I'm not arguing about the way the New UN use their colony craft, I'm arguing for the way they should be used (speaking in context of the OP, who made a valid point about the redundancy of seeking out planets when large scale, perpetual space habitation is already a reality). I will grant one thing; the New UN was under the gun so to speak. They didn't have time to build new megastructure habitats after Space War I. They had to get colonizing asap. But by 2059, fixed assets just don't make any sense under the threat of Zentradi/Supervision Army attack. But it's just something I go with because it's Macross and don't spend much time questioning.

Fade Rathnik

That's easy. Artificial structures like the Factory Satellite are designed to withstand the rigors of being moved. Stellar bodies are not. In all likelihood any attempt to transport a naturally occurring stellar body like the Earth through fold space would result in the planet sheering itself apart. Not to mention the effects of folding on natural gravity, spin, the atmosphere, et cetera. Plus, you better make sure you fold near a star at the right distance in orbit to achieve the same levels of radiation otherwise poor Earth is going to freeze

[lord_breetai]

Huh? Planets are in space. They are assailable from the same directions as any other object floating in space. Okay, let's make it simpler; you have the Factory Satellite and the moon, both in the same category of stellar body size. One can fold, the other can't. All other factors being equal (defenses, fleets, weapons), the Factory Satellite is the superior asset to have in any military sense because it is mobile while the moon is not.

Okay obviously planets are in space, stop pointing out obvious semantics... I was obviously talking about the fact that once landed on the planet, the planet itself provides cover for multiple directions of attack. Generally speaking, you wouldn't say "I'm in outer space" even though the Earth is in outer space and you're on the Earth, stop trying to make a point by arguing semantics.

And okay I totally agree, that if you somehow put a fold engine on a planet, and was able to keep it stable if you folded it out of it's orbit, it would be better then having a planet that can not fold... But I would still argue that landing a colony ship and heavily fortifying the planet's defenses is still better then having a colony floating out and about.

Yup. Not to mention that fleets in the Macross Universe are so huge that they can just bombard the entire planet. Not having to worry about somebody shooting from below you doesn't matter if your entire atmosphere catches on fire.

Again, orbital bombardment on that scale only works if the goal is your enemies total destruction, this was not the case in Macross 7, and that makes attacking a fortified position much harder.

It seems to me that there's a fallacy in this argument, which is that the emigration fleets stop permenantly at the planets they find, whereas it seems more likely that the stay long enough to get a settlement started, and then go off again.

Except we saw the entire Macross 5 fleet did land on Lux and decided they would make it there permanant home... so it's obviously an option. There must be other criteria, something about the planet that Gubaba is from that made the City 7 Fleet not want to make it there permanent home.

And please don't bother pointing out that City 5 was completely over-run nearly the minute it touched down on a planet, I am well aware.

But mind you they didn't have time to fortify their position.

[Mr March]

We're talking about space warfare which throws all kinds of traditional thinking to the wind, a lesson humanity learned the hard way to their almost total ruin. As for the no-orbital bombardment scenario, I find that whole argument absurd since extinction from orbital bombardment is the very threat the New UN hopes to counter by colonizing space. Digressing, if I were living in the Macross universe, I'd place my money on fold capable habitats rather than settling permanently on some planet. When the next Zentradi fleet comes by, I'd want the option to get out of the way.

[ComicKaze]

Manifest Destiny was more the idea that the US should bring Democracy to all the world, forcefully if need be.

No James, you are confusing it with Pax Americana

Manifest Destiny in it's original and main usage was a term for exploring America's west and settling on the new frontier.

Edited May 25, 2008 by ComicKaze

[Gubaba]

That's the point gubaba. I'm not arguing about the way the New UN use their colony craft, I'm arguing for the way they should be used (speaking in context of the OP, who made a valid point about the redundancy of seeking out planets when large scale, perpetual space habitation is already a reality). I will grant one thing; the New UN was under the gun so to speak. They didn't have time to build new megastructure habitats after Space War I. They had to get colonizing asap. But by 2059, fixed assets just don't make any sense under the threat of Zentradi/Supervision Army attack. But it's just something I go with because it's Macross and don't spend much time questioning.

I think I agree with you...and I would assume that the only reason planetary bases are given any creedence at all is due to sentimentality (or, perhaps, fear) on the part on the colonists.

I would imagine that if a human-settled planet got fried by a Zentradi Fleet, NUNS would probably abandon the idea altogether.

(Wonder why that hasn't happened by 2059...or maybe it has, and we just haven't heard about it...)

[lord_breetai]

We're talking about space warfare which throws all kinds of traditional thinking to the wind, a lesson humanity learned the hard way to their almost total ruin. As for the no-orbital bombardment scenario, I find that whole argument absurd since extinction from orbital bombardment is the very threat the New UN hopes to counter by colonizing space. Digressing, if I were living in the Macross universe, I'd place my money on fold capable habitats rather than settling permanently on some planet. When the next Zentradi fleet comes by, I'd want the option to get out of the way.

But again the Zentraedi's aim was total destruction in that attack, with the Varuta that was not the goal, so there in marks the difference between the planet based combat in Macross and Macross 7.

I do see your point, but there's something to be said about a heavily fortified position as well... (though a swift evacuation plan is nice).

No James, you are confusing it with Pax Americana

Manifest Destiny in it's original and main usage was a term for exploring America's west and settling on the new frontier.

As it was originally meant... but again it has gained that connotation based on it's usage in the late 19th and Early 20th century.

[RichterX]

I think I agree with you...and I would assume that the only reason planetary bases are given any creedence at all is due to sentimentality (or, perhaps, fear) on the part on the colonists.

I would imagine that if a human-settled planet got fried by a Zentradi Fleet, NUNS would probably abandon the idea altogether.

(Wonder why that hasn't happened by 2059...or maybe it has, and we just haven't heard about it...)

Fleet of the Strongest Women even though the Macross 7 fleet was massively outnumber it seem to gave the idea that Battle 7 in the first Macross cannon fire could wipe most of the Meltran fleet away.

[Sulendil Ang]

Nice discussion, I really like it.

Well, to be true, we never see the full process of colonization happening in any of the Macross series. In fact, the only two Macross series that specially dealt with the issue is Macross 7 and Macross F.

So here comes a question: what if people only saw colonization ships as transports, instead of a proper home itself? Sure, the technology advance in the making of colonization ship makes them looks like a good habitat, but in the end of day, it's still a ship. Try to think colonization ships as trains: You may spend a days or two in a train, but at the end of day, nobody would seriously think that the trains as a place to live permanently. The only difference between trains and colonization ships in this case, is the time, as colonization ships take years to reach their intended destination.

Also, when I am thinking back about the subject of colonization of planets, somehow it reminds me of the old days of the British Empire, where they makes colonies around the globe. Don't forget, the whole colonization is under the New UN, which has bunch of politicians. Who wouldn't say that they would use colonization as a subtle tactic to gain more territory into the galactic map of our great Terran Empire?

[Noyhauser]

ahem, yes well there is Manifest Destiny, and there is manifest destiny.

It was revived in the 1890s, this time with Republican supporters, as a theoretical justification for U.S. expansion outside of North America. The term fell out of usage by U.S. policy makers early in the 20th century, but some commentators believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny, particularly the belief in an American "mission" to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.

Doing a lot of study on Asian history in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Manifest Destiney definitely was linked to the idea that the US was this great beacon of democracy and it was obviously their fate, to to bring it to the rest of the world. Also see the concept of "the house on a hill" which is the belief that the US is the great beacon of Christianity and that it must be brought to the outside world.

The point is that they are specficially american terms, and can't much be applied in the current circumstances.

Not to diverge into this to deeply, but you've confused your terms here, partly because you're using a wikipedia definition. Manifest destiny was linked directly to the concept of a contiguous territory the United States and later its assured ability to control it. While a mission civilisatrice was a part of many supporters views, that was one of many perspectives people had on the concept of Manifest Destiny. You could very well be a conservative who supported Manifest Destiny, but did not support a colonizing mission in itself. Instead they would argue this land was god's gift for the United States, and have purely expansionist motives. This is why large segments of the Indian Population were essentially rounded up and put into camps or killed;they were only seen as a threat to the american settlers living on their land. Isolationism as a whole was a key component of U.S. policy at the time. Conservatives mostly believed that the land was for the United States, and the country should remain out of dangerous European intrigues, and Europeans should remain out of the United States. Actually your use of the concept "shining beacon on the hill" is misconstrued. Winthorp's speech does not call for the settlers to colonize others with their values, rather it is a call for them to act as piously, to serve as an example to others, not as a call to impress those values upon others. Even more pertinent is Washington's Farewell address:

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Instead according to Washington, America should focus inwards on itself, and to many later individuals, that meant the taming of the west. As another poster pointed out, what you're talking about is pax americana, or idealist notions of american hegemony. Thats for a whole different other post.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Noyhauser

[Noyhauser]

Anyway, back to the task at hand. While The space fleets might seem like utopia, its most likely that there must be major limitations on individual freedoms and aspirations both socially and economically. First population control must be key element to any long range colonization mission. Its impossible to think that the small closed society could handle a larger population, given their limited systems.

You may well see a one or two child policy at work to prevent overpopulation of a colony. Once landing on a planet, any such limitations are likely to disappear.

Moreover while the economy might run normally on a capitalist model, there must be certain limits to what you can buy, and even how much you profit. Everything operates in a closed system. Though you might be able to gain more materials through asteroid mining, you can't grow more crops, catch more fish, or raise more hippocows. Technically the economy continues as a small closed system. Such limitations only disappear once a colonyship lands. The establishment of a colony is likely to stimulate a huge boom in an economy as people start having more children, limitations are withdrawn on businesses operations, and new cities are built. There would just be more opportunities once on the ground than in space, something colonists were likely to look forward to.

[lord_breetai]

Okay once again the concept of "the city upon a hill" has definitely been used to support American imperialism; I can cite scholarly journals if you like, which I used in my end of term papers. And the same can be said of Manifest Destiny, I get you, that's not their original purpose... but I have seen both used that way, and represented as such in actual peer reviewed work.

Moving on...

I think I'd have to agree with you on the economic level here; first off I imagine that a colony fleet would run a trade deficit, as I can't really see them having many exports (except for cultural exports like music records and the like). So there likely would be quotas or tarrifs imposed on imports brought in from other countries to make the space colonies produced goods competitive, as it would surely be cheaper to raise livestock on a world then on a space colony.

I imagine the colony worlds might have Free Trade, but not the colony fleets.

I also imagine that the colony has many government run buisnesses (like Canada's Crown Corporations), running services that could not produce a profit but are needed for the good of the people.

The colonies would also look for a world that not only had an oxygen atmosphere but some natural resources that would be needed by other colony ships or worlds, this would provide a valuable trigger industry or industries that would help jump start growth and encourage entrepreneurs. This is most likely why Macross 7 didn't touch down on other systems it visited, when they reached a planet capable of supporting human habitation, the Mayor and Captain would discuss the pros and cons of the planet from both an economic and military perspective and decide if it was suitable for habitation. Max may have been doing his survey when he discovered the wounded Gubaba.

[Gui]

That's an interesting topic

While reading all this, I began to wonder if there wasn't any 'psychological' aspects into this whole 'worlds colonization' endeavour: due to all the odds which happen to them, and the fact they barely survived them, it may be possible that the survivors of the SDF-1 odyssey in space were deeply traumatized by the idea of settling in space forever, hence their will for colonizing planets and then the whole 'world colonization' project

Of course, it's very probably not the main reason, far from it actually, but it probably counted in their choice...