World Building Need help with a Cyperpunk/Future dystopian roleplay

[minigunmax]

Heyo!

Once upon a time I had created a, rp/story after binging Cyperpunk 2077s trailers + the Judge Dredd (2012) movie along with Elysium, Bladerunner 2049, District 9 and Chappie (any recommendations for other movies/shows following in the same vein/style as these are most appreciated and welcomed!). The rp wasn't fully complete and I eventually gave up on it, it sat in my mind for a few years and now, i'm confident in attempting to revive it.

But I need help...

The most glaring issue was the society and world the story takes place in. It is set on earth, roughly 150 years into the future, The world has been exhausted of nearly all its valuable resources (the first issue being that this would be impossible within said timespan given). A mixture of resource/fuel emissions and major natural events and disasters means the earth is left hot and filled with toxic chemicals and substances lingering in the air with no way of cleaning them (this is also an issue, what would be in the air that would cause significant harm to all living creatures? what would have caused such an exorbitant amount of said chemicals to be so abundant throughout the globe?).

Serendipitously, Mars had been terraformed and made into a sustainable, livable planet for "all" inhabitants of earth to move to within this time. Only 98% of earths inhabitants made it to the red planet, leaving roughly 200 million people stranded on earth, disqualified to make the move for either one of two reasons (or both); Criminal history and poverty. Colonists elected to refuse requests for those who had an extensive criminal record or were deemed "invaluable" to the mars colonization operation. This led to most major cities becoming abandoned, and the construction of Megacities (sorry Judge Dredd universe for stealing your idea). Businesses were allowed to run and operate, exhausting their remaining storage stock and resources left on earth before eventually severing all communications with earth.

But how would people live on earth when its so inhospitable? To encourage people to move to mars, expensive cybernetic enhancements and medications were offered to those who could not leave. High-power smog-filtering lung systems, Bloodstream filters, mechanical eyes, Full-respiratory and digestive system replacements to prolong life both on and off earth. To those who could not afford such surgeries, prescription alternatives were offered. Pills that neutralized chemicals in the bloodstream, cleared blocks in the lungs and brain caused by tar and chemical residue. Inhalers that "De-clogged" the respiratory system and throat of built up tar and other residue. Of course, since these were offered to encourage people of earth to move to mars, they were expensive. Corporate meddling and corruption was involved to make these solutions difficult to access, impossible to pay, and recovery time for surgeries would be longer than some peoples expected lifespans from pre-existing complications and side effects to earths new climate

^ this is also another issue which will become glaring later in this thread, how expensive would these surgeries and alternatives be? how long could a person/creature survive on an earth that requires medical equipment to live on? I had in mind that a first time visitor to earth would notice nothing the first week or month on earth. Minor coughs or headaches, nosebleeds and other bodily problems would occur within the first 3 months, scaling up to respiratory issues and significant discomfort and medical issues within the next 3 months. These issues would grow more and more dismal through the following months, eventually leading to death anywhere between 2-6 years with no medical intervention.

There was however, one other solution for those stranded on earth. The narcotic known as Reddies or Redds. A fine red powder that once introduced to the bloodstream, would give users a euphoric, senseless high that doubled as a neutralizing agent for pre-exposed chemicals in the bloodstream introduced by earths toxic atmosphere. It was cheap, relatively easy to mass produce, and was a requirement for those who could not afford proper prescription medication to survive the un-manageable climate of earth. As a result, the drug ran rampant through earths last remaining mega cities, with an estimated 97% of earths inhabitants relying on the drug. Discontinuing the drug wouldn't result in the users death, though the uptick in toxic chemicals building up in the users body from the atmosphere with nothing to neutralize, would lead to their inevitable death.

Onto corporate and political issues surrounding earth at this time; Corruption runs rampant through the last remaining major corporations and government agency's left on earth. Police passively turn a blind eye to most minor crimes due to having such a large population of convicted criminals being forced to stay on earth. Bribes are given from drug dealers and king pins to help push the supply of Redds to the dwindling population of earths inhabitants, and more often than not, cops are found to be directly involved in major crimes to save up for a ticket to mars. The medical industry is turned on its head, not willing to waste what little resources they have on an overwhelming amount of people sick from earths atmosphere, and exploiting them for their money with overpriced surgeries and medications to prolong the populations lives for what may be as little as a few years.

With all that exposition out of the way, here are my most major questions I gravely need help answering/solving:

1: "It is set on earth, roughly 150 years into the future, The world has been exhausted of nearly all its valuable resources"
how long into the future would it take for earth to be depleted of its resources? is it possible? what technological advancements would surpass the need for natural resources to be required for fuel an energy?

2: "A mixture of resource/fuel emissions and major natural events and disasters means the earth is left hot and filled with toxic chemicals and substances lingering in the air with no way of cleaning them"
What natural (or unnatural) events would lead to such a toxic atmosphere on earth? (my answer for this was a mixture of Co2 and sulfur from carbon footprints, along with numerous, earth changing volcanic eruptions throughout the globe, global population rising, uncontrollable forest fires and new technologies emitting new chemicals into the air) Could it be cleaned or managed by those on earth or perhaps solved entirely?

3: "how would people live on earth when its so inhospitable?" Could earth reach a point where its atmosphere is, although toxic and dangerous, still hospitable to "modified" or surgically enhanced organisms? What would be the biggest threat in the air and what surgeries or alterations would solve these issues (regardless of cost or technological requirements)?

4: an odd question I have not mentioned (this being in regard to the story i had in mind which would be set in this universe), would there be any benefit to drastically reducing the total population of earths inhabitants? ie... would someone, regardless of their mental state, desires and perspective on life struggling to survive on earth, see it as a "noble cause" to induce a man-made mass extinction event on an already dying planet?

This thread is a doozy, and if you've read up to this point, I thank you deeply. I haven't had any conversations with anyone on the site aside from one off comments and advice, and I thank you kindly for your time and focus. If you made it this far, maybe you're interested in hearing about the story I had in mind for this rp? I am always open to have a chat with anybody about nearly anything, so please, feel free to send me a message and we can start chatting! Thank you again for looking at my request, It truly means alot to me.

 

[minigunmax]

bump
Forgot to bump only after 24hrs... please forgive me mods >~<

 

[Beckoncall]

What I would do to justify the using of all the resources and the sloppiness (pollution) in the same go would be a mass exodus off of earth, and simply everything that would be required materially to terraform mars in a hurry. The earth could be seen as a waste dump for the future eden that mars is made to be -- forget just natural resources and anything of any real value being moved to mars -- most of the ANIMALS, AIR, AND WATER would be moved to mars -- as cheaply and quickly as possible.

Do if you want your ruined dystopia in 150 years time you seem to already have the reason in place.

Perhaps Cyborgs, Transhumans, and robots capable of surviving the harsh conditions of new earth could also be a thing.

But yeah, Megacities are built over the pollution flooded surface cities and just above the cloud-level of pollution.

What else is a serious issue?

 

[minigunmax]

What I would do to justify the using of all the resources and the sloppiness (pollution) in the same go would be a mass exodus off of earth, and simply everything that would be required materially to terraform mars in a hurry. The earth could be seen as a waste dump for the future eden that mars is made to be -- forget just natural resources and anything of any real value being moved to mars -- most of the ANIMALS, AIR, AND WATER would be moved to mars -- as cheaply and quickly as possible.

Do if you want your ruined dystopia in 150 years time you seem to already have the reason in place.

Perhaps Cyborgs, Transhumans, and robots capable of surviving the harsh conditions of new earth could also be a thing.

But yeah, Megacities are built over the pollution flooded surface cities and just above the cloud-level of pollution.

What else is a serious issue?

Thanks for taking a read!

I don't know how fast it would take (even cutting corners into crimes against humanity or other barbaric methods of speeding progress) for humans to rush the mass migration off earth but with current technologies I'd imagine anywhere between 200-500 years doesn't seem impossible with todays technology's?

I will take your advice on moving animals and other creatures off earth! I originally planned that only certain creatures and plants would make the move, but I don't see why draining earth of everything it could possibly offer could be out of the picture, so thank you again!

As for augmented humans, robots and cyborgs, I really wanted to tie this aspect to corporate corruption and meddling. Overpriced surgeries, intentionally faulty technology, lack of cheaper alternatives, no spare parts offered, etc... Anything and everything to exhaust what materials and storage too expensive/non-profitable to ship to mars, and are left on earth, while also draining every possible cent from the pockets of those forced to pay for these technologies (regardless of the legality and ethicality of such acts). Ranging from the cheapest lung / respiratory filters which would make even steady full time workers empty their wallets for, and could kill you if faulty. To the most expensive option: full body replacement and consciousness transfer into a fully mechanical body.
Any advice or thoughts on that would be most greatly appreciated!

An issue I currently have on my mind is police/law enforcement corruption
I had a pretty simple idea in which, due to the overwhelming criminal/convict population of the city, along with the desire to save up for a ticket to mars, Officers would freqently go out of their way to encourage major crimes and even participate in them to get a bigger payout at the end of their case.
Example: petty theft, vandalism, assault; no payout due to how insignificant and frequent the crime is
Murder, robbery, possession of narcotics: large payout
With the majority of earths inhabitants being criminals and people below the poverty line, drug use (most commonly; reddies, which anyone who cannot afford body augmentation MUST frequently purchase just to survive) and street crime becomes frequent, the police have more arrests to make and thus, more money to save for a ticket. They passively encourage dealers to push the supply of reddies to catch people in possession of the substance, and even set up major buys/transactions for their own personal use, or to plant on anybody they can get their hands on.

I really want to expand on this idea and have more police+corporate corruption scandals and dynamics that creates a power balance between the two factions (that being law enforcement and organized crime) and I'm not sure what else I can throw into the mix... anything to get both parties working hand in hand is great to me!
If I think of any other questions or issues that can be solved I'll reply to your comment again and see what we can come up with!

Thank you again for taking the time to read my thread it means alot to me!

 

[cl0ud]

If I am, to be honest, this seems like a boot that needs some shining. I think this is a good idea and fulfills a popular crime-drama sci-fi niche but needs some refinement. First, overarchingly, you need to create a story. The elements you seek to have in your story will become incorporated as you organically develop your story. Focus on fleshing out your themes before you hone in on the specifics. If I could condense your idea into a summary, it would be a science-fiction opera about the delinquent and forgotten on a ruined Earth. Greedy corporations and corrupt politicians exploit them. This summary hits the important things you are looking for: the criminal population, an apocalyptic Earth, political corruption, and corporate greed, all in a science fiction setting. Using this as a driving force, you can develop your major themes.

Here's a way to answer some of your more specific questions, along with my personal notes.

how long into the future would it take for earth to be depleted of its resources?

You are using a blanket term here. In reality, everything is a resource. Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, is a critical resource and has many industrial applications. However, I assume you mean water, timber, oil, natural gas, coal, and arable soil. To figure out when the world will run out of resources, let us look to one of the most famous studies on ecology - Limits to Growth and World Dynamics. Limits to Growth is a book authored by four MIT students, commissioned by the Club of Rome in 1972, and based on World Dynamics by Jay Forrester, an MIT professor - a brilliant one at that. Now, granted, Limits to Growth was not meant to be a predictor of any means and overlooks some of the things we are looking for (water and arable soil, namely), but can give us a good idea about the decline of society. From its publication in 1972, Limits to Growth used statistical and computer models to argue that the world would run out of natural resources by, at maximum, 2072. The subsequent consequences would be a sharp downturn in the world's economic and industrial capacity and a population decline. In 2020, a KPMG analyst named Gaya Herrington revisited Limits to Growth's "Business as Usual" (BaU) model and added quantitative data over the last 48 years after initial publication, and found that the actual year is much closer to 2040. Limits to Growth used the World3 systems dynamics model, inspired by Forrester's Urban Dynamics.

​

As you can see, the main systems the World3 model evaluates are:

• non-renewable resources
• food systems
• industrial output
• population
• pollution

There are flaws with the systems and the way they were created that intrinsically throw off parts of the model (namely in pollution and resources, as seen in Models of Doom: A critique of the Limits to Growth (1973). However, according to the 2020 Herrington report, the numbers are accurate and we are expected to reach capacity in 2040. If that does not inspire some degree of existentialism, I do not know what will.

Anyway, it would take 18 years for the Earth to "run out of resources," or at the very least, exhaust resources enough that it will start having tangible effects on the global community.

what technological advancements would surpass the need for natural resources to be required for fuel an energy?

This is simply impossible. If anything, the primary quantitative metric you use to evaluate a civilization's progress is its energy consumption. See the Kardashev Scale in the original paper here. If you want to skip the background and go straight to the actual scale, it starts on page 3.

While the abandonment of fuel or energy for a society to function is impossible, finding alternative energy sources is not! The most promising alternative low-emission fuel source right now is nuclear energy. Wind power and solar power are great, but if we are honest, we need to shift our energy production entirely to low-emission fuel. Nothing stirs up energy like nuclear fission (see nuclear warheads). The craziest part is that we do not even really need to reinvent the wheel regarding nuclear energy. Of course, their demands improvements upon security, efficiency, etcetera, but that is hard to come by when there is so little investment in Big Nuke. A global transition to energy primarily from nuclear power is needed to supersede oil, gas, and coal.

To be honest, humanity is dropping the ball when it comes to our real world. We have the technology to make great strides in nuclear energy, but the stigma and lack of investment aspiration in the sector is humanity shooting itself in the foot. There are great alternatives to traditional nuclear power plants like the Breeder Reactor or the Small Modular Reactor (SMR). There is a lot of geopolitical red tape around some of these concepts, primarily because of the proliferation of material used in constructing nuclear warheads.

What natural (or unnatural) events would lead to such a toxic atmosphere on earth? (my answer for this was a mixture of Co2 and sulfur from carbon footprints, along with numerous, earth changing volcanic eruptions throughout the globe, global population rising, uncontrollable forest fires and new technologies emitting new chemicals into the air)

I would say this is pretty spot on. Not so much the volcanic eruptions, but global population and carbon emissions would screw up the biosphere. Ocean acidification, sea-level rise, season creep, droughts, increased wildfires, mass mortality events, invasive species, extreme weather, rain acidification, crop failures, decrease in the amount of potable water, increased diseases, soil erosion... the list goes on and what I have provided is by no means comprehensive.

You do not have to look far to find regions severely impacted by pollution and climate change. Suppose you pop over to evaluate air quality across several cities internationally. In that case, you will find that many places are either already requiring supplemental equipment just to breathe or are on a rapid pace towards that point. IQAir, a Swiss air quality technology company, monitors air quality levels worldwide. The five cities with the highest AQI ratings are Lahore, Delhi, Mumbai, Dhaka, and Zagreb. In Lahore, residents who cannot breathe are emigrating. There are higher rates of colds and influenza in Lahore and lung diseases, asthma, cancer, heart disease, and cancer.

If you want to read more about air pollution and its effects on human health, see this report from the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences.

Could it be cleaned or managed by those on earth or perhaps solved entirely?

No*. By 2025, the Earth will have passed a tipping point where the effects of climate change will be permanent. However, we can mitigate the amount of pollution on the planet by reducing the population! There is less need for carbon dioxide emissions with fewer people on the planet. Considering that the world is 150 years in the future in your story, there has already been some degree of natural population control. Between 2060 and 2075, Earth will hit its carrying capacity point of ~9.6 billion and gradually begin its decline. Some projections are more extreme than others, but generally, the consensus is that after 2075 the global population will begin to level out. By 2172, it is unclear what the population will be. If we assume stagnation, we might be back to where we are now at 7.9 billion. More likely towards 7.5 or 7, in my opinion, though. This will have positive effects on the climate!

In addition to population control, another way to manage climate change is to manage climate change. With a transition to renewable and low-emission energy, better recycling, more efficient and ecological industrial production, the world will benefit greatly.

However, your story does not assume that the global population is between 7 and 8 billion in 2172; it's 200 million! This is a 97% decrease in the global population. At that rate, assuming the world has not been destroyed, reclaiming the environment would not be that difficult. With some stringent emission edicts a global mission to reduce emissions and reverse the effects of climate change, there is a real possibility to see Earth green again by 2300 or even 2250!

Could earth reach a point where its atmosphere is, although toxic and dangerous, still hospitable to "modified" or surgically enhanced organisms? What would be the biggest threat in the air and what surgeries or alterations would solve these issues (regardless of cost or technological requirements)?

Yes. If you can somehow implant carbon dioxide filters in an individual's airways to separate the carbon from the oxygen, they can breathe freely on the surface. Alternatively, you could also create kickass air filters that do the same thing but do not require a medical procedure. Instead, individuals would wear filters over their faces.

would there be any benefit to drastically reducing the total population of earths inhabitants? ie... would someone, regardless of their mental state, desires and perspective on life struggling to survive on earth, see it as a "noble cause" to induce a man-made mass extinction event on an already dying planet?

There is always a noble cause to kill humans. The just war theory is an ancient philosophy and is still taught today in political science and military courses. Specifically, you ask jus ad bellum, or "right to go to war." When in the debate of jus ad bellum, the argument I could see an individual making is a just cause casus belli. "See the benefits of a reduced population? Let us further reduce for the good of humanity."

Suppose you are asking if people would follow this individual, sure. With enough time, propaganda, influence, and charisma, you can convince anyone to do anything. Sometimes you do not even need necessarily all four of those things.

Serendipitously, Mars had been terraformed and made into a sustainable, livable planet for "all" inhabitants of earth to move to within this time.

Honestly, suppose your human civilization has the technology to travel quickly between two planets within the solar system and the technology to travel en masse. In that case, you will probably be fine. However, if they can terraform, I do not see a point in leaving the Earth. Just use the same terraforming/climate control techniques you did on Mars to stabilize the Earth?

To encourage people to move to mars, expensive cybernetic enhancements and medications were offered to those who could not leave. High-power smog-filtering lung systems, Bloodstream filters, mechanical eyes, Full-respiratory and digestive system replacements to prolong life both on and off earth. To those who could not afford such surgeries, prescription alternatives were offered. Pills that neutralized chemicals in the bloodstream, cleared blocks in the lungs and brain caused by tar and chemical residue. Inhalers that "De-clogged" the respiratory system and throat of built up tar and other residue. Of course, since these were offered to encourage people of earth to move to mars, they were expensive.

I do not see how this would encourage people to move to Mars. If I got a cool cybernetic arm that I can attach contraptions to in exchange for staying on a dying Earth, I would not do that, but still, it would be a pretty compelling argument. Especially with "high-power smog-filtering lung systems" being an option, many people would choose to stay on Earth for the cool cybernetics.

The entire concept you present here is highly confusing. At first, it looks like a global government is subsidizing the undesirables with cybernetics and drugs to scare people into moving to Mars. In this case, why would you need this draw anyway? An inhospitable dying Earth is not enough compelling argument to go to (essentially) a utopia? Do you need to outfit the poor and criminals with deadly upgrades to cull the herd?

Then I read the next part, "to those who could not afford such surgeries, prescription alternatives were offered." What? No one can afford those alternatives. Previously you stated only the poor and convicted could stay on Earth because they were undesirable. Last time I checked, neither the poor nor convicted could afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a cybernetic enhancement. Maybe that is the point, and this is how you introduce your Redds to the story.

Only 98% of earths inhabitants made it to the red planet, leaving roughly 200 million people stranded on earth, disqualified to make the move for either one of two reasons (or both); Criminal history and poverty.

First, according to World Vision, about 9.2% of the world lives on $1.90 or less per day. That is roughly 689 million people. Doing some quick algebra, your population in 2172 is ~10 billion. 9.2% of 10 billion would be 920 million. Also, why would someone being poor disqualify them from colonizing the new planet? That is probably the most classist thing I have ever read. If that is the point, then by all means - let the bourgeoise colonize Mars and leave the peons to fend for themselves on the out-of-date Earth. I assume a rationale (other than strictly that these people are poor) is that they would not be able to afford a ticket or something to ride on a transport to the colony. However, if an entire global population is migrating, the logistical nightmare of that alone will probably waive the cost of admission.

Second, I understand that leaving criminals behind would be a good idea. I think someone who got busted for petty theft should have a much higher social standing than someone who was a serial killer. The point is if you left behind every person who ever received a criminal charge, your population on Earth would be significantly higher. Maybe even closer to 2 billion. Maybe more!

The narcotic known as Reddies or Redds

I have an issue with this entire concept. One problem is in the pure operation of the drug. I assume that an enzyme in this powder somehow does something with carbon dioxide and somehow produces oxygen. Still, it would be much more logical for a genetic engineering company utilizing CRISPR to implement a gene into humans that synthesizes an enzyme that breaks down carbon dioxide and produces oxygen, similar to photosynthesis except without chlorophylls. Or maybe with chlorophylls, and everyone turns green.

government agency's left on earth

Why is there any government left on Earth?

The medical industry is turned on its head, not willing to waste what little resources they have on an overwhelming amount of people sick from earths atmosphere, and exploiting them for their money with overpriced surgeries and medications to prolong the populations lives for what may be as little as a few years.

This is a contradictory statement. If anything, this is the exact case with Purdue Pharma and the opioid epidemic in the United States. I assume if you give enough people time, research, and money, they will be able to produce a "pharmaceutical equivalent" to Redds, patent it, and sell it at an incredible premium. I believe Redds is already a highly-addictive substance (other than its ability to counter the adverse effects of living on Planet Pollution), so that is a tick in the same department of opioids. The pharmaceutical industry should be booming. Selling prescriptions left and right for the incredible number of ailments that people have due to climate change. Doctors should be making bank by prescribing and meeting with people constantly. Hospitals performing these surgeries are also making bank because they are already overcharging the patients.

Additionally, if the "global government" can transfer 9.8 billion people to Mars, businesses should be able to set up a supply chain from Mars to Earth. Manufacture your pharmaceuticals on Mars, ship them to Earth, sell to the afflicted people, profit! With limited government oversight, you could even start shipping experimental chemicals to Earth and using people who do not know any better as guinea pigs. The severe ethical dilemmas would be great stems for exciting plotlines.

What I would do to justify the using of all the resources and the sloppiness (pollution) in the same go would be a mass exodus off of earth, and simply everything that would be required materially to terraform mars in a hurry. The earth could be seen as a waste dump for the future eden that mars is made to be -- forget just natural resources and anything of any real value being moved to mars -- most of the ANIMALS, AIR, AND WATER would be moved to mars -- as cheaply and quickly as possible.

Amazing suggestion. Always good content from you, Beckoncall .

for humans to rush the mass migration off earth but with current technologies I'd imagine anywhere between 200-500 years doesn't seem impossible with todays technology's?

With today's technology, terraforming Mars through actively moving anything would be nearly impossible. We have not even mastered the renewable rocket. The closest to doing that is SpaceX's Falcon 9, which has not perfected the craft yet. I would suspect we do not see the possibility of sustainable space travel for small distances for at least 100 years. Maybe in 2100, we will be able to travel to and from the Moon with low economic cost. In 1941, a plane ticket from Los Angeles to Boston was $4,539.24 per person and took 16 hours and 12 layovers. Today, that same flight costs $283 direct.

Disregarding the technological barrier and economic cost, getting people to stay focused on something for one year can be an arduous task. Imagine getting the entire human species to focus on a project for five hundred years.

intentionally faulty technology

The only benefit I see is companies making users come back to them for repairs. Kind of how Apple makes products dysfunctional after some time so consumers will buy the newest product. I could see an interesting slavery dynamic here through debt traps—forced labor for the company.

Any advice or thoughts on that would be most greatly appreciated!

I have provided a couple of examples in this post, but this is a pretty straightforward concept. Company A sells a good that is highly addictive/intends to fail/poorly made/etc. Consumer purchases product from Company A and becomes reliant on it. Consumer encounters a problem with their product. Consumer cannot afford to replace/repair products. Company A offers a debt contract - servitude in exchange for a replacement. Consumer will never be able to pay off the debt. Consumers end up being a free employee for Company A. You can do this with cybernetics, medical procedures, pharmaceuticals, handbags, energy drinks, etc.

Officers would freqently go out of their way to encourage major crimes and even participate in them to get a bigger payout at the end of their case.

The problem I see here is commission-based policing. There is the question of why police departments are still on-planet, but I have already touched on that. Commission-based policing encourages crime. If an officer can grow a drug ring but has all the information he would ever need for a case on them, he could make an infinite amount of money. I do not know how policing works in other countries, but in the United States, our police officers are paid by the hour or on salary. Bounty hunting is a different story.

If you still want to incentivize crooked cops, I would suggest creating a reward-based system instead of a commission-based one. Officer Johnny made 415 arrests this week? Wow! The Department gives him a special medal. Officer Johnny then applies to transfer to Mars, and the government sees this level of excellence and places Officer Johnny in the priority queue/waives his ticket/subsidizes his ticket.

Another thing to keep in mind when you have people leave, though, is their families. Officer Johnny probably has a wife and a daughter (because cops, for some reason, always have daughters) that also need to go to Mars. Is he going to leave them? Are there systems in place to encourage him to take them with him? Can he work on a temporary visa, get paid more money on Mars, and send money back to Earth to get his family tickets for a permanent migration? Lots of questions.

If you want to encourage police corruption, have them accept bribes. Skip the Department they work for. Officers are more likely to accept bribes because it gives them a greater chance of buying their ticket to paradise. This is common in countries like Colombia, where officers look the other way for drug cartels in exchange for money that typically pays for bills but will eventually pay for a way out.

 

[minigunmax]

WOW! Thank you so much for your time and suggestions! I'm flattered you took the time to read through my thread and offer so much help!
I'll be reading through this over the weekend, you've been a great help and I cant thank you enough!

I don't want to clog and bump this thread with messages from myself, so if I have any questions I'd like to pm them to you, otherwise, you've been a great help!
Thank you again!

 

[cl0ud]

Feel free to message me privately.