I asked, part six

There is no word for a small self-sufficient high-technology society because none exist.

A brilliant observation by Trent which requires a brilliant response. Here it is...

Nothing exists, until it does.

I am imagining a society on mars in the way that I am because that is what is required for it to exist. All other plans that I know of envision a soviet style base dependent on the earth that ultimately can not survive. All of them. For one reason, because they see NASA as being a part or even the leader. NASA which was based on a military model to beat the Russians. Not the free commercial model that has been** America's unique greatness. That, for many, is too hard to see (especially if they are part of the other model where they work.) SpaceX was too hard for many to see, now it exists. Begun in 2002, It has been doing firsts, every year of it's existance. I expect they will be first to put a commercial lander on mars as well.

• The Space Settlement Initiative would create a company town writ large, not a free society (although they hope one could develop in time.)
• The Mars One project creates a company town writ small, starting with four colonist in 2023. It is dependent on life support modules from earth. This is part of the reason Trent has described it (and while I support it, I must agree as it is currently envisioned) as a suicide mission.
• Zubrin, of the Mars Society, wants to build a railroad to mars using big NASA rockets, or send two alone which isn't much different from flags and footprints even if they do spend months instead of days on mars. While Zubrin has his naysayers, he's a man with ideas.
• Others have ideas for bases, but freedom is not part of their model. I envision ownership and self sufficiency (from the day they land) as essential for their success and growth. This requires an understanding of an industrial ecology and the required skills the colonists must and can possess. This vision is exactly as Trent describes it... something that does not yet exist. 

The idea itself is fantastical to us - even if we're talking about right here on Earth.

Exactly right, which is why people bring out the Antarctic analogy to refute the idea. But here's why Antarctica is a bad analogy...

Thousands of people see mars as a place they would like to live because it has all the resources for life and provides a frontier. Antarctica does not. That is the justification: people want to live there. Of course, it's only a legitimate justification if they aren't asking other people to pay for it. Assuming they pay for it themselves, no other justification is required.

Nothing exists until it does is profound. When I was young, I used to create jobs within companies for myself. Those jobs didn't previously exist (because technology and society were in flux in those years.) One time a company sent me one of those "thanks, but no thanks" letters... after I got the job. It was as an aide to one of the engineers that I interviewed with. He was tasked with doing a machine feasibility study of all the equipment at their Tucson plant. The idea being, with this study the sales department could better price the custom beryllium oxide parts they sold. If some part required a higher tolerance than our machines and labor could produce, it would alert sales that more than the usual procedure was required to quote a price so they wouldn't lose money from some go getter salesperson.

It is common that something new is hard to envision. The usual response is to explain how it could never work (until eventually the naysayer will claim it was their idea all along.) Human history is a chain of events of things people thought would never work. Ask Clarke.

Yes, it is all about ideas becoming reality. It's always about ideas becoming reality.

Part One.

**Will it be in the future?