Curmudgeon’s Creative Challenge #18

It’s time for another Creative Challenge. Here’s the deal. You are in command of a once-in-a-generation expedition to take settlers to another world, a habitable planet orbiting a relatively nearby star. It’s an enormously expensive undertaking, and your ship may be the only one that ever gets to that world, so you have to choose the settlers carefully.

Of course you want the best advice about genetic diversity, because you don’t want a world full of inbred idiots with various genetic disorders. But do you need to have people from every diverse population on Earth? You can’t do that, because there’s countervailing issue — your passengers may be the only ones who ever get to the new world. They’ll need to work and live together. They’ll have to speak the same language and have the same basic values. It would be suicidal to have potentially hostile factions in your small population, so they have to be culturally homogeneous

But you can work that out. Japan, for example, is essentially all Japanese, but they’re not a bunch of inbreds. That’s also true for much smaller countries, like Iceland. You can have cultural homogeneity without worrying too much about genetic diversity.

A bigger problem is getting people who possess all the knowledge and skills that the new world will require. You’ll need scientists and engineers, and people who know agriculture and building construction. Of course you’ll need physicians. The list is long, but space aboard your ship is limited. You can’t take experts in every discipline.

Your task, dear reader, is to make sure that the available berths on your ship are not wasted on people with unnecessary or undesirable training. Our question to you is: What would you leave out? Obviously, no sane expedition would include creation scientists. But what else doesn’t qualify?

Your Curmudgeon wouldn’t waste space on theologians or sociologists. Nor would we have room for experts in some of the numerous contemporary topics found in liberal arts schools, like any of the varieties of so-called critical studies. But we want to hear from you. What would you leave out?

The form of today’s challenge is that you must tell us, with reasonable brevity:

Experts in what subject (or subjects) would you exclude from your interstellar settlement expedition?

You know the rules: A successful entry should be self-explanatory. You may enter the contest as many times as you wish, but you must avoid profanity, vulgarity, childish anatomical analogies, etc. Also, avoid slanderous statements about individuals. Feel free to comment on the entries submitted by others — with praise, criticism, or whatever — but you must do so tastefully.

There may not be a winner of this contest, but if there is, your Curmudgeon will decide, and whenever we get around to it we’ll announce who the winner is. There is no tangible prize — as always in life’s great challenges, the accomplishment is its own reward. We now throw open the comments section, dear reader. Go for it!

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

42 responses to “Curmudgeon’s Creative Challenge #18

  1. Diogenes' Lamp

    Sorry, Prof. Tertius. We’ll miss you.

  2. Diogenes’ Lamp says: “Sorry, Prof. Tertius. We’ll miss you.”

    Hey! Just because your answer assumes you’re in command, don’t get cocky. We all know that when the real ship is ready, I’ll be in command. You’ll have to convince me where you fit in.

  3. Diogenes' Lamp

    I know a lot about fine liquor!

  4. Cathy Anne

    You will need experts in Chemistry, physics, botany and engineering to start.

  5. Theologians would not be necessary.

  6. Alas, no space for lawyers, stock brokers, TV ‘personalities’, MBA’s, bankers, foreign currency traders, salesmen, preachers, realtors, or chiropractors.

    But–equally arbitrarily–I have no problem booking berths for a handful of historians, to preserve (for future edification) the chronicles of the crimes and follies of mankind.

  7. The above exclusions are all good, and in addition: Commodities Traders, Project Managers, Scientologists, and Nickelback.

  8. GregS suggests: “Project Managers”

    I donno. Things don’t get done by themselves. But I suppose engineers and such can figure out who among them is going to run things.

  9. I would include artists, musicians and the like. Life may be possible without them but it wouldn’t be pleasant. Art is an essential component of life.

  10. Use advanced brain scanning techniques to sort out the true believers from the atheists/agnostics and then make a rational decision as to whether or not to include them in your new utopia.

  11. Diogenes’ Lamp says: “Sorry, Prof. Tertius. We’ll miss you.”
    Hey! Just because your answer assumes you’re in command, don’t get cocky.

    I got a good chuckle out of that–and it raises a serious issue. Would not the limitations on the number of personnel call for as many multi-disciplinary, multi-skilled people as possible? Indeed, since one has over seven billion people to choose from, would we not want as many polymaths as possible?

    For example, I can think of one former colleague from long ago who has notable skills in art, music, wood-working and is a poet, columnist, musician, and a member of the American Philosophical Society. He also loves games and puzzles and has often written about them. He’s published translations on what many would consider quite esoteric (and even obscure) French and Russian novels and poetry, among other miscellaneous works from other languages. He published Le Ton beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language many years after our career paths took us in different directions, but despite its focus on an arguably unimportant French poem, I find it extremely significant in its observations about the countless subtleties and nuances, pitfalls and tradeoffs in natural language translation–and therefore of great relevance to my own linguistics research. At one time he accepted a Chair for the Study of Human Understanding. (Surely understanding humans has something to be said for it.)

    The last I talked with him he was a professor of psychology, although just a few years later a mutual friend told me that another university had offered him quite an interesting adjunct professor of comparative literature, history, philosophy, as well as psychology post. He accepted that offer. Yet, another few years after that I read that he was also teaching in one of my favorite fields of long ago, the Dept. of History & Philosophy of Science.

    While all of those rich facets of his remarkable contributions as a humanities scholar are decidedly within the liberal arts sphere which Our S.C. (interesting be he) reasonably assigned a lower priority which probably wouldn’t make the cut for the flight, I would nevertheless vote for this particular professor’s inclusion. After all, Dr. Douglas Hofstadter has a Ph.D. in physics (with a very strong-background in mathematics), after which he was a computer science professor…and last I heard he was a cognitive science professor and well-known for his writings on Artificial Intelligence. [I got to know him early in his career and we had our Biblical Studies and linguistics/translation-dynamics discussions in those days. I’d love to chat with him now and see how his cognitive science research since those days have influenced his translation perspectives.]

    The fact that Doug Hofstadter’s father won a Nobel-Prize in Physics would suggest that the junior Hofstadter could also represent a worthwhile genetic contributor to the new world. [Don’t let Ken Ham know that I said that. He’ll accuse me of eugenics and blame it all on Darwin!]

    Besides, Doug’s father, Richard Hofstadter, even got a sitcom character named after him. I was briefly introduced to his aging father (he was probably 70-something at the time) so I can now look back and say that there was a definite facial resemblance to the actor playing the namesake physics professor in the sitcom today. [That worthless factoid is thrown in at no extra charge.]

    So…..I would recommend not casually dismissing outstanding humanities scholars (or even philosophers, historians, linguists, and theologians) because polymaths and “renaissance men” have paved the way in a great many of the “practical” fields of science and technology. Why settle for a mere specialist in a single field of science when multi-discipline, broadly educated and broadly-skilled scholars bring so much wide-spectrum understanding, creativity, intuition, and problem-solving skills that will be needed most in addressing the many problems of a new world which cannot be clearly predicted in advance?

    I’d say that the Roger Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Benjamin Franklin, and Douglas Hofstadter types are generalists who can preserve knowledge, scientific and otherwise from many academic fields as well as help a new society set the stage for adequate specialization and the resuming of ongoing research and discoveries after the new society is functionally stable in the new environment.

    And yes, you are likely to find linguists, theologians, philosophers, poets, comparative literature scholars, historians, political scientists, economists, artists, and musicians among them. (Perhaps some might include “creation scientists” among the comics, clowns, and jesters in the new world–but history already tells us how that can pan out. So I would suggest letting humor arise more organically this time.)

  12. Alas, no space for lawyers, stock brokers..bankers, foreign currency traders, salesmen…

    The above exclusions are all good, and in addition: Commodities Traders, Project Managers…

    Wow. As a historian I’m quite surprised to see those omissions. Most of those occupations are not only very important, many of them are absolutely essential. (So I will assume that they were stated very much tongue-in-cheek.)

    Societies lacking those critical occupations do not produce economies which are strong enough to support educational systems and the specializations of science and technology. They are also essential to producing democratic societies where there are sufficient freedoms and civil liberties where discovery and invention arise. (Does anyone doubt that financial reward through royalties and profits has been a huge incentive to scientific development?)

    I suppose I should expect most of us on a Young Earth Creationist “watch website” to be very pro-science and technology—but surely nobody here thinks that science and technology develops and is sustained in a vacuum.

    ‎Jared Diamond’s Germs, Guns, & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies is among the best starting points for these basics.

    My annoyance at lawyers extends well beyond those in my own extended family. Yet, I freely acknowledge that when the White House and U.S. State Department reach out to assist and stabilize new democracies throughout the world, they send lawyers, business, and economic advisors who help the new nations establish the legal and fiscal infrastructures upon which all else–science, technology, and health services especially!–crucially depends. By the way, this has been one of the many historical gaffes in Neil Degrasse Tyson’s documentaries. For example, he usually goes out of his way to blame the collapse of the Arab Golden Age of Science on Islam. But if he learned some history, he would find that religion had very little to do with it. The geopolitics and economic factors of those centuries are not difficult to grasp.

    [Of course, there is a lot of similar ignorance concerning the history of science and religion in Europe of the Middle Ages. Yet, contemporary historians have well documented which 19th century scholars obfuscated the facts and produced many of the most exaggerated mythical tensions. (No, I’m getting too old to re-invent the wheel and re-fight battles already won…just as I don’t tutor anti-vaxxers and 9/11 controlled-demolition conspiracy theorists. However, I will say that I was delighted to see Lawrence Krauss kabosh some of the more popular myths on the imagined “war on science” which some try to assign to the Vatican of past centuries. I might wish he would go yet another step further and also remedial tutor and protest the mythology surrounding the alleged “blood bath” of the Spanish Inquisition which dates to the propaganda of Protestant Reformers intent on vilifying all things associated with Rome and the Papacy. It’s a fun topic–and yet another example of the huge gap between contemporary scholarship and what the general public thinks they know–but one that I’ve played remedial tutor far too many times.]

  13. Q: Experts in what subject (or subjects) would you exclude from your interstellar settlement expedition?

    A: Anonymous Blogging (I concede you are expert).

  14. docbill1351

    You’ll need a comedian with a sharp sardonic wit!

    At your service, squire.

  15. Use advanced brain scanning techniques to sort out the true believers from the atheists/agnostics and then make a rational decision as to whether or not to include them in your new utopia.

    Yet another tongue-in-cheek observation which encourages thought. One of many things which history tells us is that efforts by “true believers” to eliminate atheists/agnostics and efforts by atheists/agnostics to eliminate “true believers” led to the same result: oppressive societies which were not good for anybody.

    Thankfully, the Founding Fathers of the United States understood enough European history and philosophy to listen to the warnings of both the religious and secular worlds’ best thinkers: Protecting freedom of speech, ideas, and personal liberties for all produced a better society—one where the government did not favor or disfavor religion or the lack of religion. Neither religious tyranny nor non-religious tyranny produces any sort of utopia. Tyranny of every kind is still tyranny.

  16. Cathy Anne

    No one involved in astrology, palm reading or chicken entrail reading.

  17. @ Prof. Tertius: Yes, I was being moderately tongue-in-cheek🙂

    In fact, I have no doubt that any such ‘utopian’ scheme would be an utter disaster within three generations or less. No matter how rigourous a selection of ‘the best and the brightest’, I have deep faith that regression to the mean would return humanity to its general mediocrity and stumble-bum thrashings.

    And that’s probably just as well. I have often thought (generally in the aftermath of some depraved act by religious extremists) how wonderful it would be if the whole of humanity, on awakening tomorrow morning, had totally forgotten any notion of any sort of diety whatsoever, and we all just got on with doing the best we can as custodians of our own fate. But of course that will never happen, and what is more, any coercive efforts–such as practised by the Soviet Union–to actively attempt to suppress religious beliefs is utterly reprehensible (leave alone counterproductive).

    So: no Intelligent Redesigning of human culture, please!

  18. Yes, it is surprising that the SC should consider Intelligent Design of human society.

  19. Tom S says: “Yes, it is surprising that the SC should consider Intelligent Design of human society.”

    I’m merely choosing the best of the volunteers. On your ship, I suppose you won’t have any volunteers, so you’ll have to load it up with convicts.

  20. I suspect on any ship that had a reasonable chance of making it somewhere–anywhere–there would be a lot of volunteers.

    They’d be the pioneers, oddballs, jailbirds, ne’er-do-wells, isolationists, separatists, fundamentalists, weirdos, and all sorts of other misfits.

    You know, the kind of folks who settled the US a few years after Columbus.

    That didn’t work out too bad, until recently.

  21. Of course, I’m not at all claiming that a colony of ultra-elite will necessarily be an optimum combination of people. There is much anecdotal evidence from many quarters that such an atypical mix of people will have difficulty reaching consensus and cooperation. But I do don’t know if there has been much systematic study of such–nor do I know how an empirical analysis could be done.

    Will a mixture of polymath elites agree on a division of labor, especially when thankless, grubby, tedious jobs must be done? Or does a new colony need the hard-scrabble pioneer stock who are used to deprivation and the impossible?

  22. Hugh Howey explored this very same question in his book “Half Way Home.” Some of the lesser appreciated experts ended up becoming the most important members of the budding society for reasons explored in the book. Highly recommended as a thought experiment dealing with this question in fiction form.

  23. Dave Luckett

    Thesis: You’d have to leave out graduates in feminist or gender studies.

    Argument: You’ve got a world to populate from a small base. You want it to be by civilized people. Civilization means cities. Cities can’t begin to exist until there’s enough population not only to people them (with various economic specialists not directly involved in food production) but to support them with food production from outside.

    The destination world also probably poses threats you don’t know about. You have to have the potential for rapid replacement of casualties.

    Therefore, the population must be capable of a high birthrate, and must be willing to take and support the measures and social structures to achieve it. Short of assuming very economical, extremely robust and easily-maintained technology (easily maintained with simple, primal materials, that is) capable of substituting for a human uterus, those social values must exist universally.

    Which means that women on this spacecraft won’t have the unabridged right to choose. As with practically everywhere before the twentieth century, the women must be capable of and prepared to bear multiple children, and they must also be prepared to subject their daughters and granddaughters to this fate, and to raise them in expectation of it. I suggest that while one can test for fertility and estimate the chances of morbidity from childbirth, it is far more difficult to test for the truthful acceptance of those values,

    Men don’t get off lightly, either. Sure they get to father many children, but men on this spacecraft must be prepared to work like dogs to support their wives and raise their children, and to raise their sons to do the same – and that attitude would be even harder to test for.

    One important test that might be applied is an absence of gender or feminist studies in the CV. Anyone with such a qualification has inevitably started from a perspective that women have the right to choose and almost certainly that gender and sexuality is also a personal choice or at least is as specified by the individual. There is nothing at all wrong with those values in a society such as ours, which can afford them – and indeed, can’t afford a high birthrate. The rights they imply are truly to be celebrated, as we have recently had confirmed. But those values will not do when there’s a new planet on which a civilization has to burgeon from a few hundred people.

    Conclusion: Therefore, graduates in feminist or gender studies are out.

  24. Forget about this “New World”. I’d be concerned with making Earth more livable.

    With that in mind, I’d load up the spaceship with the likes of Kim Jong Un, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, half of Pakistan, and the Discovery Institute. Throw Ken Ham in there as well.

  25. Professor Tertius reminds us that “thankless, grubby, tedious jobs must be done”

    Yeah, somebody has to install the sanitation system. Perhaps there will be a practical use for theologians and sociologists after all.

  26. Our Curmudgeon suggests:

    somebody has to install the sanitation system. Perhaps there will be a practical use for theologians and sociologists after all.

    You don’t want to leave sanitation system installations to Creationists: they’re liable to include concealed cameras in the works.

  27. The only sociologist I’m personally familiar with is Phil Zuckerman and that is through his excellent book: “Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment.”. I don’t know if I’d include a sociologist as a necessary expert on this mission but I do know that profession has a practical use; if nothing more it is to write books like the above mentioned.

  28. “It would be suicidal to have potentially hostile factions in your small population, so they have to be culturally homogeneous.”
    That’s a non-sequitur. Our new world apparently will have very little connection to the old one. Moreover our group will have to focus on new challenges. That means that many, many old conflicts simply will be irrelevant. I only have one criterium: accept science.

    “What would you leave out?”
    Free market believers like you. We are going to need to design our new world – design based on science, not on believe in metaphorical Invisible Hands.

    “We all know that when the real ship is ready, I’ll be in command.”
    Then I’ll pass. I’m not going to obey commands from someone who only partially accepts science. It will be a failure as long as you stick to your beloved Invisible Hand. I insist a pupil of Paul Krugman joining and I’m sure we’ll be at loggerheads here.

  29. That means that many, many old conflicts simply will be irrelevant.
    “What would you leave out?”
    Free market believers like you. We are going to need to design our new world – design based on science, not on believe in metaphorical Invisible Hands.

    I’m not going to obey commands from someone who only partially accepts science. It will be a failure as long as you stick to your beloved Invisible Hand.
    I insist a pupil of Paul Krugman joining and I’m sure we’ll be at loggerheads here.

    So, in other words, you appear to be at least potentially contradicting yourself in just a few sentences: ….many old conflicts simply will be irrelevant… and yet: …we’ll be at loggerheads here in just a few sentences.

    Yes, I do agree with you that conflicts about economic systems will most likely arise–but is it not obvious that free enterprise will kick in, no matter what may be the initial optimism about various Utopian ideals? (How long did it take the colony at Plymouth Rock to revert back to a type of free market economy? What was the body count before they admitted the realities of human nature?)

    Do you believe that the diversity of opinions and the realities of human nature will disappear when everyone boards the spacecraft? Or will someone develop a new technology which one by one “sanitizes” the brains of those headed for the Curmudgeonous New World? Otherwise, many (if not most) of the conflicts from the Old World will reappear in the new.

    As a historian, I’m especially eager to be tutored on the relative successes (in terms of civil liberties as well as in science and technology) of those societies in which free market forces were not allowed to operate. I’m neither a Friedman-worshipper (or an MF-er, as I described myself in a review of his Free to Choose series back in the 1980’s) nor a smug Keynesian (though I played one on TV) but I do know enough about economics to say that “the invisible hand” will definitely be found on that S.S. Curmudgeon space vessel the moment the third person has boarded. [“Explain why three.” would be a suitable Intro to Macroeconomics exam question for chapter 1 of the textbook.]

    I appreciated mnbo’s very interesting comments.

  30. SC’s interesting challenge brings up yet another relevant question: How many generations will it take to generate religious diversity? (Even if the founding population is relatively areligious, will it stay that way? Why or why not?)

    Here again, history has much to teach us.

  31. On your ship, I suppose you won’t have any volunteers, so you’ll have to load it up with convicts.

    Lots of serious convictions have been the basis for new societies. Botany Bay was one of many.

    {I use wordplay to amuse myself.}

  32. Professor Tertius says: “I appreciated mnbo’s very interesting comments.”

    Me too. I’m wondering — without a productive and innovative free enterprise system, where the resources will come from, and who is going to pay for this expensive expedition? Will it all be done by government clerks?

  33. Will it all be done by government clerks?

    Perhaps mnbo will expect “an invisible hand” to do it?

    Perhaps each participant in this New World will contribute according to his/her ability and take only according to his/her need. A worker Utopia is sure to result.

  34. I keep resisting the urge to recall the old observation about 20 year old socialists versus 50 year old socialists. (I’ve managed semi-successfully thus far but make no promises about the future.)

    Truly, I’ve been fascinated by the various recommendations of who to leave out of the colony. Yet, it is very difficult to determine which are serious and which are tongue-in-cheek.

    As to the artists and entertainment people, I see no reason to include them specifically because they will arise spontaneously from any population we select. That is, we don’t have to include the most elite musicians and poets, for example, because music and poetry will remain alive wherever there are human societies. (To my knowledge, the rare exceptions are cultures under unusual circumstances which would be quite opposite of those of the proposed colony.) So, selectivity is not necessarily being anti-arts or anti-entertainment.

  35. Professor Tertius says: “As to the artists and entertainment people, I see no reason to include them specifically because they will arise spontaneously from any population we select.”

    I agree — there’s no need to pick a professional musician who has no other essential training and skills. There are scientist, engineers, physicians, etc. who are also musicians or artists, so if we select a few of those we’ll have talent in the gene pool. Their descendants can specialize in the arts when the settlement is sufficiently mature and prosperous. And although no one has mentioned this — when selecting settlers, we’re probably going for married couples of demonstrated fertility, and we’d want each of the pair to be expert in something essential.

  36. Yes, my academy experience has been this: Most of the top scholars, no matter what department faculty I joined, had diverse backgrounds and degrees. This was true at the state universities where I taught and true at the top evangelical schools.

    For example, one of my co-authors was a chemist before going back for his doctoral work and becoming a renowned Biblical studies scholar. Another was a physician, another an archaeologist. There were quite a few law degrees among them. Many were Ivy League grads as well as D. Phil.s from Oxford and Ph.D.s from Cambridge, Nottingham, Munich, and many other top programs across Europe.

    I mention this fact in order to contrast them with most of the Young Earth Creationist professors I knew from fundamentalist Christian institutions in the USA. I was amazed how many of the senior faculty members had all three of their academic degrees from denominational/confessional, unaccredited institutions. (Some even got all three of their degrees from the same campus and then stayed there to teach!)

    Now that contrast is not quite as extreme today as it was in the 1960’s—but it is still obvious to me, when I look back on my own experiences and the many seminary professors and published scholars I’ve known—that the “creation science” advocates among them were for the most part more narrowly educated, held fewer prestigious degrees from top institutions, and were as mediocre among the ranks of Biblical scholars as they were mediocre at understanding basic science.

    As a result, I find that “faith issues” have much less to do with their positions on evolution and the age of the earth than their breadth of knowledge and experience. I constantly run into this when I try to explain the simplest of scientific concepts as well as Biblical studies topics outside of their denominational “party line”. Kruger-Dunning prevails, again and again—and extends across the domains of many academic fields, not just science. Because they hold some sort of doctorate (even if just an unaccredited Th.D. from some denominational school), they think themselves of the academic elite. In actual fact, they are not among the ranks of the top evangelical professors, who more superlative academic pedigrees I’ve already described.

    Unfortunately, it is those mediocre academics from the more extreme fundamentalist schools who tend to get media coverage and who convince the general public that evangelicals are ignorant and science-illiterate.

  37. There is much discussion here concerning the role of religion in this new colony.

    It would seem that in the history of humankind, the biggest use of theology is to control other people. Even if the first colonizers are all absolute atheists, it seems inevitable that human nature will eventually re-invent religion. It is a most effective means of influencing the behavior of others.

  38. Prof.T makes an interesting point which to me translates to “How long would it take for our neurotic behaviors to induce mystical beliefs or behaviors among at least a single individual in the group”.

    I doubt science could eliminate the long (or even short) term cognitive effects fear and uncertainty have on people. Not even with full on eugenics.

    How could even superficial tribalism among different service specialties be avoided? I have a difficult time imagining a social environment that could prevent stress or uncertainty related behaviors permanently. The inability to imagine such a panacea may be a limitation of my own.

    Douglas Adams had the best idea, put the middle men on the ship and plot a course that would ensure it never got anywhere near our solar system again.

  39. I’m surprised that no one mentioned “I’ve got a little list … who never would be missed” of Koko in “The Mikado”.

  40. If no lawyers, you’ll want at least a professor of law or someone well-versed in how to resolve conflicts and create a stable system for determine how and when to punish wrongdoers.

  41. In response to The Curmugeon and Professor Tertius on my choice of Project Manager and Commodities Trader, I offer the following explanations:

    By commodities trader, I guess I was thinking more of the futures speculator type, not the actual traders of goods.

    As for project managers, I do agree that we’ve always had people to manage projects – the pyramids got built after all. What I object to is people that actually have a degree in project management, as opposed to people actually qualified for whatever project.

    Once upon a time, I dated a woman that majored in project management, and took a look at her textbook. It turns out that being a project manager doesn’t require any actual expertise in the project… just the ability to manipulate people and lie.

  42. Greg S says: “By commodities trader, I guess I was thinking more of the futures speculator type, not the actual traders of goods.”

    Futures markets provide a useful service. For those who need commodities, it’s a way to assure a future source of supply at a known price, rather than paying whatever the price may be when the stuff is needed. The flip side benefits the producer of the commodity — he can sell his future crop now, at a known price, instead of facing the unknowns at harvest time. The speculators are also useful, because they make the markets more liquid.

    I agree, however, that such people won’t be needed when the settlers are first getting themselves established, so I wouldn’t recruit them for my ship. But I’d certainly have a library explaining how markets work, because the need for that kind of activity will eventually arise.