Hacker News Reader

Comment by _8j50 | Hacker News Reader

I disagree. Antartica is best suited to simulate the climate, hostile environment and logistical challenges. Especially the unexplored parts.

View on HN

Antarctica is a great idea as well. I am not sure what the political challenges would be if somebody with a sufficiently absurd amount of money to throw at the project actually attempted it. The antarctic treaty is supposed to prohibit nation states from claiming pieces of it as sovereign territory, but those negotiations from the 1950s/1960s didn't really envision modern billionaires doing such things independently.

Whether somebody would have the early stages of their construction project shut down by a flown-in team of military forces from some major nation states (US, Russia, UK) is another question. Or simply blockaded and shut down at places like the ports in Chile, Argentina, Tasmania, mainland Austrlia, New Zealand, South Africa.

> The antarctic treaty is supposed to prohibit nation states from claiming pieces of it as sovereign territory, but those negotiations from the 1950s/1960s didn't really envision modern billionaires doing such things independently.

You've actually got the same exact problem with the Outer Space Treaty. It only prohibits countries from claiming sovereignty over outer space or any celestial body.

Claiming soveregnity automatically makes you a country, no?

I think it would be more accurate to say "having your sovereignty recognised by other countries automatically makes you a country", but obviously there are bootstrapping problems with that definition.

Sure, but you'd be recognising yourself as a country at least to have sovereignty.

If you form a new country that country isn't a part of existing treaties.

Sure, but unless you sign those treaties no one will recognize you and then it's fair game to take all of your assets.

Not really. There’s actually not a single thing that every country in the world agrees on.

There are 2 non-signatories of the Vienna Convention in Diplomatic Relations.

While that is true in theory, it's not true in practice. The 2 non-signatories are irrelevant countries.

I dunno, 12 million people live in South Sudan, and irrespective of that, there is not a single thing that every country agrees on. Even the definition of what a country is.

How would you define a country?

There’s also plenty of “global” treaties that United States is not a party of. Does this make the US a “irrelevant country”?

South Sudan is barely a state, as we both know, and is still fairly recent. Give them a few years.

The US doesn't accede to these treaties because it has a huge economy and military.

I mean, if the ISS can happen I am sure it can be worked out.

I suppose that one could consider a place like McMurdo as a proof of concept of such already, since its necessary annual inputs of cargo and life-support supplies (food, etc) are extremely well documented at a granular level in terms of the purchasing and procurement process and cargo manifests.

the ISS is not self sustaining and you can resupply quickly. For Mars you need to be able to survive for years before some kind of rescue is possible.

I'm not sure why it needs to be done by billionaires independent of nation states, the trip to mars sure won't be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com