I really hope that Mars colonization will be used as an opportunity for creating and testing out alternative socioeconomic system(s), but I'm afraid this might be a bit naive to expect. Important figures/governments behind Mars colonization will almost certainly have a plan and vision well before it happens. This is another space race after all and a power game on political level. Even Elon Musk already envisions capitalist scenario on Mars - he spoke that it would be a great opportunity for new businesses to grow, like first cafe on Mars, first pizza on Mars, this is charming in some way, but isn't it boring on the other hand? We have way too much of consumerism on Earth and to envision the same scenario continuing on Mars? I like Elon Musk, but I think we can do better than that. What about direct democracy and everyone influencing the system with a bit of his/her own vision without any elected decision-makers, for example? In a digital age this is entirely possible.
Yes we can: by imminence if not by choice
Subash ChapagainSep 21, 2020
So far, the world has come a long way in time and history through ancient feudalism to modern slavery to authoritarian communism to capitalism in the guise of neo-liberalism. None of the socioeconomic models seem to be perfect in retropspect. This means that the constant change in the human conditions, behaviours and psychology will eventually give rise to new forms of socio-economic models with time.
As of now, most of the world is connected -both by the trade and by the internet- albeit the connectivity is creating a massive problem of environmental degradtion and economic inequality. While the top 1% wealthy enjoy all the privilege in this solar system, a lot are still under acute poverty and destitute. Not just this, the looming climate crisis has raised an existential alarm for the human species as well as all the flora and fauna of the planet earth. Hence, it indeed is a perfect timing for some kind of corrective systems to emerge. If not, humanity is doomed.
So, what could the new systems be like?
Actually, there are few signs (though they should be viewed from a skeptical lense). For example, the Green New Deal in both the Americas and Europe has emerged as a new model for shifting our economic and financial activities. Based on the environmentalist notions, the green new deal advocates for incorporation o policies such that by 2050, the net emission (carbon) should be brought close to zero if the human species wishes to venture fearlessly into the future in this planet. Post-Brexit Europe seems to be gradually moving in this collective process as the Economist Yanis Varoufakis leads the movement, and similar signs of engagement are seen in the Democrats in the states. What is still unclear is whether the movement would substantiate and win over the apparent counters from the proponents of existing oil-based economies .
As the University of Massachusetts' professor of Economics Richard Wolff has proposed in his several lectures and articles, there needs to be new kind of workplace-democratization if we are to ensure that the world is more equitable and the environment healthier. In what he calls worker self-directed enterprises (WSDEs), Professor Wolff advocates for modifying the present top-down modelled capitalists enterprises into workers-owned enterprises where the workers are equally equitable for the profits and gains of the enterprise .
Another tweaking that can come in our economic systems is in the form of data ownership and regulation. As consumers, we must have control over the data that we provide for free to the tech giants like Amazon and Google. Only when the corporations are liable to give some sort of equity to individuals as consumers, there can be a check and balance where the profits earned by the corporations would make everyone wealthy in the long run.
Transcendentalism has a fancy-sounding name, but it's a rather simple philosophy. The basic concept is similar to individualism. "A core belief is in the inherent goodness of people and nature, and while society and its institutions have corrupted the purity of the individual, people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent."  Two best-known figures associated with this philosophy are Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. Emerson could be considered the father of transcendentalism, even though the roots of this ideology precedes him. And Thoreau is the author of the world-famous literature classic "Walden" which is based on and represents the ideas of transcendentalism.
But why such a rather old ideology would be a fit for future society? It seems that global society is already moving in the direction of individual rights being if not the highest, then one of the highest values. Throughout history, societal constructs were given great importance and humanity's social conditioning was oriented towards preserving and strengthening those - "work for your nation, respect its institutions, listen to authority figures, look up to them, try to fit into your local community, work for its benefits", etc. Now, this traditional model of values is increasingly melting - we see accelerating globalization and individual rights being promoted more and more on various levels - gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, physical and mental abilities, age, etc. This means that society is beginning to accept individuals more and more as they are, create a welcoming environment, and give support for them so that they could flourish. The individual is seen more as being valuable on its own and not just as a unit of (and beneficial for) a larger construct. More and more distinctive and unique features of the individual are being accepted and supported, therefore there is less and less need to hide things and isolate yourself from society to feel free to be yourself.
Society needs unique, creative, and innovative ideas to move forward towards a better future. And those ideas always come from certain individuals. And those ideas are the main thing that significantly influences and shapes society, but ironically individual as a unit has been and still is undermined as merging with the rest of society while he is actually a very crucial building block of it. One might argue that just a small percentage of all individuals are truly prodigious, but another perspective, which transcendentalism is in line with is that every individual is great and that this greatness is unleashed when a person is in the position to be truly free and truly himself.
A society in which personal uniqueness and independence are highly valued and promoted is a society that takes care of its building blocks. A society in which individuality is thriving is a healthy and wholesome society. On a practical level, this means providing conditions for each individual to be free, independent, and self-reliant and as a consequence of that being able to flourish, unleashing their true potential, and being able to contribute his/her unique input into the collective.
Absolute rule shared by 3 people for a lifetime
Darko SavicSep 21, 2020
First, we should fix the leadership model. Then we can experiment and iterate on the socioeconomic models. I thought of this a long time ago. I hope I remember it right:
Autocracy shared by 3 rulers, representing different age groups
Psychological profiles and the lifelong actions/history of all candidates would be examined by a huge panel of the world's top experts. Only people who are highly emphatic and otherwise determined fit to rule would be eligible to run for a lifelong position. The world would basically be looking for Mother Theresa/Gandhi type of people.
Three people would be democratically voted in. The youngest would be 24-28 years old, the 2nd would be 35-45, and the oldest 60-65 years old. Only when the oldest is too frail to rule or any of the 3 wants to retire, do people vote in a new 24/28-year-old.
The 3 different age groups would serve to represent each of the demographics. People under the age of 24 would not be eligible because their prefrontal cortex has not yet matured and their decisions might not be optimal because of it.
The entry point via public vote would always be on the youngest spectrum regardless of which of the 3 happens to retire or is removed from the post via various safety mechanisms.
Those 3 rulers would have to talk amongst each other until a unanimous decision is reached for each issue. They would be aided by various experts of their choice. All the decisions and their entire track record (who said what, when, and why) would be public so that they can be held accountable for their actions.
They should be given anything they could possibly want so that their decisions cannot be influenced by material goods. Their extended families and friends should be protected so that they cannot be influenced by threats. The only thing they should worry about is the good of humanity/planet. They would love doing it too, because of their suitable personality traits.
Objective realities of humans do not change
Husnain YousafSep 30, 2020
Socioeconomic status of humans are objective truths, which are assessed by income, education, or occupation, which is directly linked to a wide range of human sufferings and problems, including low birth weight, lack of love, unfair distribution of wealth, inherited diseases, hypertension, arthritis, diabetes, and cancer. A new world is not going to be imaginary Marxist that lower socioeconomic status would vanish. Socioeconomic problems are associated with higher mortality, either the mars or earth they are not going to change the disparities occur in the human mind living under sociology.