# 7029 byspace.action@... on Oct. 30, 2005, 7:20 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
*
**'Star Trek' Actor George Takei Comes Out!*
Enterprise through three television seasons and six movies, has come out as
a homosexual in the current issue of Frontiers, a biweekly Los Angeles
magazine covering the gay and lesbian community.
Takei told The Associated Press on Thursday that his new onstage role as
psychologist Martin Dysart in "Equus," helped inspire him to publicly
discuss his sexuality.
Takei described the character as a "very contained but turbulently
frustrated man." The play opened Wednesday at the David Henry Hwang Theater
in Los Angeles, the same day that Frontiers magazine featured a story on
Takei's coming out.
The current social and political climate also motivated Takei's disclosure,
he said.
"The world has changed from when I was a young teen feeling ashamed for
being gay," he said. "The issue of gay marriage is now a political issue.
That would have been unthinkable when I was young."
The 68-year-old actor said he and his partner, Brad Altman, have been
together for 18 years.
Takei, a Japanese-American who lived in a U.S. internment camp from age 4 to
8, said he grew up feeling ashamed of his ethnicity and sexuality. He
likened prejudice against gays to racial segregation.
"It's against basic decency and what American values stand for," he said.
Takei joined the "Star Trek" cast in 1966 as Hikaru Sulu, a character he
played for three seasons on television and in six subsequent films. He
received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1986.
A community activist, Takei ran for the Los Angeles City Council in 1973. He
serves on the advisory committee of the California Civil Liberties Public
Education Program and is chairman of East West Players, the theater company
producing "Equus."
# 7030 bysraj@... on Oct. 31, 2005, 11:57 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
For normal kind of sexuality in a space hab, space cruiser, space outposts, you would need equal number of men and women.
My feeling on the subject is, homosexuality should be tolerated but kept under wrap. Part of the problem with sexuality on planet earth may be that it has become important for us to control the human population, while the natural instinct is to have as many children as possible. With the promise that in space habs it will be possible to accomodate hundreds of billions of people, family planning will hopefully no longer be required, and we will see once again the family cohesiveness that used to be seen in large families.
Selvaraj
From: cygonaut
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:50 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Star Trek Actor George Takei Comes Out
*
**'Star Trek' Actor George Takei Comes Out!*
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- George Takei, who as helmsman Sulu steered the Starship
Enterprise through three television seasons and six movies, has come out as
a homosexual in the current issue of Frontiers, a biweekly Los Angeles
magazine covering the gay and lesbian community.
Takei told The Associated Press on Thursday that his new onstage role as
psychologist Martin Dysart in "Equus," helped inspire him to publicly
discuss his sexuality.
Takei described the character as a "very contained but turbulently
frustrated man." The play opened Wednesday at the David Henry Hwang Theater
in Los Angeles, the same day that Frontiers magazine featured a story on
Takei's coming out.
The current social and political climate also motivated Takei's disclosure,
he said.
"The world has changed from when I was a young teen feeling ashamed for
being gay," he said. "The issue of gay marriage is now a political issue.
That would have been unthinkable when I was young."
The 68-year-old actor said he and his partner, Brad Altman, have been
together for 18 years.
Takei, a Japanese-American who lived in a U.S. internment camp from age 4 to
8, said he grew up feeling ashamed of his ethnicity and sexuality. He
likened prejudice against gays to racial segregation.
"It's against basic decency and what American values stand for," he said.
Takei joined the "Star Trek" cast in 1966 as Hikaru Sulu, a character he
played for three seasons on television and in six subsequent films. He
received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1986.
A community activist, Takei ran for the Los Angeles City Council in 1973. He
serves on the advisory committee of the California Civil Liberties Public
Education Program and is chairman of East West Players, the theater company
producing "Equus."
# 7031 bylucioc@... on Oct. 31, 2005, 12:54 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 10/31/05, sraj wrote:
>
> For normal kind of sexuality in a space hab, space cruiser, space outposts, you would need equal number of men and women.
you mean men and women partitioned in stable couples.
> Gay rights is unfortunately a double edged sword. While one can sympathize with the
> idea that two persons of the same sex would like to live their life together, we cannot
> escape the fact that children are born and they grow up in the same environment, and
> they inculcate the values of that environment. And with the kind of hardsell made
> possible by modern communication and media 90% of humans could be converted into
> homosexuals.
Your opinion that sexual orientation is defined by the environment
alone would be considered controversial at best nowadays. Anyhow, even
if it were an environment-defined characteristic, what exactly is the
intrinsic problem of a society with a homosexuality rate of 90%?
> My feeling on the subject is, homosexuality should be tolerated but kept under wrap. Part > of the problem with sexuality on planet earth may be that it has become important for us > to control the human population, while the natural instinct is to have as many children as > possible. With the promise that in space habs it will be possible to accomodate hundreds > of billions of people, family planning will hopefully no longer be required, and we will see > once again the family cohesiveness that used to be seen in large families.
Although for some time (two or three centuries, I would guess) there
will be probably no need of population control in space, in the long
run that need will inevitably arise. Humanity can grow at an
exponential rate, but on the other hand it can expand through a 3D
space only at a much slower *cubic* rate, so in the end population
will be forced into cubic expansion.
# 7032 bydsw_s@... on Oct. 31, 2005, 4:30 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
sraj:
>> For normal kind of sexuality in a space hab, space cruiser, space
>> outposts, you would need equal number of men and women.
> It depends on how you define "normal kind of sexuality". I assume
> that you mean men and women partitioned in stable couples.
Not even then, unless everyone is in a couple at all times. For
example, if women marry early, men marry late, and widows remarry,
you could have a stable population of (for example) 20% children 5%
unmarried women, 15% unmarried men, and 30% married men, and 30%
married women.
Btw, I find it implausible that anything would have converted me
into a homosexual.
The natural instinct is not to have as many children as possible,
but to have as many great-great-...-grandchildren as possible.
There are, crudely speaking, two strategies toward that end: to have
as many children as possible as soon as possible (r-selected), or to
have children with the maximum chance of surviving to have children
(K-selected). Human instinct includes aspects of both, weighted
slightly toward K-selection.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
>
> On 10/31/05, sraj wrote:
> >
> > For normal kind of sexuality in a space hab, space cruiser,
space outposts, you would need equal number of men and women.
>
> It depends on how you define "normal kind of sexuality". I assume
that
> you mean men and women partitioned in stable couples.
>
> > Gay rights is unfortunately a double edged sword. While one can
sympathize with the
> > idea that two persons of the same sex would like to live their
life together, we cannot
> > escape the fact that children are born and they grow up in the
same environment, and
> > they inculcate the values of that environment. And with the kind
of hardsell made
> > possible by modern communication and media 90% of humans could
be converted into
> > homosexuals.
>
> Your opinion that sexual orientation is defined by the environment
> alone would be considered controversial at best nowadays. Anyhow,
even
> if it were an environment-defined characteristic, what exactly is
the
> intrinsic problem of a society with a homosexuality rate of 90%?
>
> > My feeling on the subject is, homosexuality should be tolerated
but kept under wrap. Part > of the problem with sexuality on planet
earth may be that it has become important for us > to control the
human population, while the natural instinct is to have as many
children as > possible. With the promise that in space habs it will
be possible to accomodate hundreds > of billions of people, family
planning will hopefully no longer be required, and we will see >
once again the family cohesiveness that used to be seen in large
families.
>
> Although for some time (two or three centuries, I would guess)
there
> will be probably no need of population control in space, in the
long
# 7033 bysraj@... on Nov. 1, 2005, 2:13 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Our galaxy is very vast, it can hold any population explosion. My guess is, once space habs around the solar system get established, there will be the natural itch to move beyond it - a would say within 200 years of space habs being established around the solar system.
Selvaraj
Lucio wrote:
Although for some time (two or three centuries, I would guess) there
will be probably no need of population control in space, in the long
run that need will inevitably arise. Humanity can grow at an
exponential rate, but on the other hand it can expand through a 3D
space only at a much slower *cubic* rate, so in the end population
will be forced into cubic expansion.
From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Star Trek Actor George Takei Comes Out
On 10/31/05, sraj wrote:
>
> For normal kind of sexuality in a space hab, space cruiser, space outposts, you would need equal number of men and women.
It depends on how you define "normal kind of sexuality". I assume that
you mean men and women partitioned in stable couples.
> Gay rights is unfortunately a double edged sword. While one can sympathize with the
> idea that two persons of the same sex would like to live their life together, we cannot
> escape the fact that children are born and they grow up in the same environment, and
> they inculcate the values of that environment. And with the kind of hardsell made
> possible by modern communication and media 90% of humans could be converted into
> homosexuals.
Your opinion that sexual orientation is defined by the environment
alone would be considered controversial at best nowadays. Anyhow, even
if it were an environment-defined characteristic, what exactly is the
intrinsic problem of a society with a homosexuality rate of 90%?
> My feeling on the subject is, homosexuality should be tolerated but kept under wrap. Part > of the problem with sexuality on planet earth may be that it has become important for us > to control the human population, while the natural instinct is to have as many children as > possible. With the promise that in space habs it will be possible to accomodate hundreds > of billions of people, family planning will hopefully no longer be required, and we will see > once again the family cohesiveness that used to be seen in large families.
Although for some time (two or three centuries, I would guess) there
will be probably no need of population control in space, in the long
run that need will inevitably arise. Humanity can grow at an
exponential rate, but on the other hand it can expand through a 3D
space only at a much slower *cubic* rate, so in the end population
will be forced into cubic expansion.
# 7034 bydsw_s@... on Nov. 1, 2005, 7:36 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> Our galaxy is very vast, it can hold any population explosion.
Given a continual expansion into space at a constant velocity, call
it c, the population at time t is limited to what can fit into a
sphere of radius ct. For simplicity, I assume that people have a
mass of 100 kg and the density of water, and thus take up a tenth of
a cubic meter each. The volume of people can't exceed the volume of
the colonization sphere. Then I look at exponential growth with a
doubling time of 30 years, and calculate how long it takes before
the volume of the population exceeds the volume of the colonization
sphere: the exponential growth can't go on that long.
It's been a while since I last plugged in the numbers, so I would
have to find the calculator. But it might be instructive to take a
guess how soon unlimited growth becomes unfeasible, and then do the
calculation yourself.
--- In spacesettlers@...m, sraj wrote:
>
> Our galaxy is very vast, it can hold any population explosion. My
guess is, once space habs around the solar system get established,
there will be the natural itch to move beyond it - a would say
within 200 years of space habs being established around the solar
system.
>
> Yes there is one problem though. Even travelling at 0.1% of the
velocity of light - 300 Km / sec - it will take more than 4000 years
to reach Alpha Centauris. (Will it be possible to reach higher
velocities?). The population in the flotila of star ships/habs
headed for Alpha Centauris will have to be kept stable.
>
> Selvaraj
>
> Lucio wrote:
>
> Although for some time (two or three centuries, I would guess)
there
> will be probably no need of population control in space, in the
long
> run that need will inevitably arise. Humanity can grow at an
> exponential rate, but on the other hand it can expand through a 3D
> space only at a much slower *cubic* rate, so in the end population
> will be forced into cubic expansion.
>
> From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
> To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 6:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Star Trek Actor George Takei Comes
Out
>
> On 10/31/05, sraj wrote:
> >
> > For normal kind of sexuality in a space hab, space cruiser,
space outposts, you would need equal number of men and women.
>
> It depends on how you define "normal kind of sexuality". I
assume that
> you mean men and women partitioned in stable couples.
>
> > Gay rights is unfortunately a double edged sword. While one
can sympathize with the
> > idea that two persons of the same sex would like to live their
life together, we cannot
> > escape the fact that children are born and they grow up in the
same environment, and
> > they inculcate the values of that environment. And with the
kind of hardsell made
> > possible by modern communication and media 90% of humans could
be converted into
> > homosexuals.
>
> Your opinion that sexual orientation is defined by the
environment
> alone would be considered controversial at best nowadays.
Anyhow, even
> if it were an environment-defined characteristic, what exactly
is the
> intrinsic problem of a society with a homosexuality rate of 90%?
>
> > My feeling on the subject is, homosexuality should be
tolerated but kept under wrap. Part > of the problem with sexuality
on planet earth may be that it has become important for us > to
control the human population, while the natural instinct is to have
as many children as > possible. With the promise that in space habs
it will be possible to accomodate hundreds > of billions of people,
family planning will hopefully no longer be required, and we will
see > once again the family cohesiveness that used to be seen in
large families.
>
> Although for some time (two or three centuries, I would guess)
there
> will be probably no need of population control in space, in the
long
> run that need will inevitably arise. Humanity can grow at an
> exponential rate, but on the other hand it can expand through a
3D
> space only at a much slower *cubic* rate, so in the end
population
# 7035 bylucioc@... on Nov. 1, 2005, 7:46 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 11/1/05, sraj wrote:
> Our galaxy is very vast, it can hold any population explosion. My guess is, once space habs around the solar system get established, there will be the natural itch to move beyond it - a would say within 200 years of space habs being established around the solar system.
>
> Yes there is one problem though. Even travelling at 0.1% of the velocity of light - 300 Km / sec - it will take more than 4000 years to reach Alpha Centauris. (Will it be possible to reach higher velocities?). The population in the flotila of star ships/habs headed for Alpha Centauris will have to be kept stable.
(...)
15 years we have discovered for sure what astronomers have been
suspecting for decades: neither interstellar space is "empty" nor the
Solar System ends in Pluto's orbit. Beyond Pluto there is the Kuiper
Belt (and there is growing suspicion that there is another ring beyond
KB) with millions of comets and hundreds of small planets, and the
vast Oort Cloud, with billions of comets extending one or two
light-years in interstellar space. Other stars much likely have
similar clouds. Also, there is evidence of interstellar "rogue
planets" not tied to any sun. So, we do not have to "go to Alpha
Centauri" as classic FC authors were used to imagine, we just have to
move deeper and deeper in interstellar space, consuming planetesimal
after planetesimal and creating more and more habitats from their raw
materials. Colonization of the galaxy will rather remember a colony of
bacteria (habitats) growing in a nutritious medium (interstellar
space), instead of the classic analogy of Polynesians (interstellar
settlers) jumping from island to island (planetary system to planetary
system) in canoes (interstellar ships).
Now that I brought the bacteria colony analogy, I think that it will
be easier to understand why population growth and exhaustion of
resources will sooner or later become an issue for someone no matter
how big the galaxy is. When a bacteria colony starts to expand in a
nutritious medium (say, a petri dish), it starts as a circle that
grows in diameter as time passes. However, eventually the resources in
the center of the circle get exhausted and bacteria there start to
die, and so you will get an ever-expanding circular border of living
bacteria and an ever-expanding central disk of dead bacteria. One
could argue that innermost bacteria, when feeling that their resources
are running off, could always move to "unexplored" regions of the
petri dish, but chances are that bacteria of the outermost layers will
get there first.
In the same way, if we imagine our swarm of self-replicating habitats
as an expanding sphere, in the center of the sphere resources will get
exhausted and the habitats will not be able to replicate endlessly
there anymore. If some habitats choose to move to the "surface" of the
sphere, much likely someone that is closer to the outer layer will get
to those untapped resources first. And so the only alternative to the
habitats will be recycling and population stagnation. In due time, not
even that.
# 7036 bylucioc@... on Nov. 1, 2005, 7:51 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 11/1/05, Dan Wylie-Sears wrote:
> > Our galaxy is very vast, it can hold any population explosion.
>
> Expontentially many >> astronomically many.
>
> Given a continual expansion into space at a constant velocity, call
> it c, the population at time t is limited to what can fit into a
> sphere of radius ct. For simplicity, I assume that people have a
> mass of 100 kg and the density of water, and thus take up a tenth of
> a cubic meter each. The volume of people can't exceed the volume of
> the colonization sphere. Then I look at exponential growth with a
> doubling time of 30 years, and calculate how long it takes before
> the volume of the population exceeds the volume of the colonization
> sphere: the exponential growth can't go on that long.
>
> It's been a while since I last plugged in the numbers, so I would
> have to find the calculator. But it might be instructive to take a
> guess how soon unlimited growth becomes unfeasible, and then do the
> calculation yourself.
(...)
Of course you are being overly optimistic in your assumption because
you are assuming only a limitation of space, while a realistic
estimation would be limited by the amount of matter (resources) in the
space considered.
The only way to escape the inevitability of population problems would
be... To also *create* new space and new matter exponentially as
needed. Perhaps creating baby universes with some sort of godlike
space-time engineering. Not a likely possibility, as far as we know.
# 7037 bydsw_s@... on Nov. 1, 2005, 8:09 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> Of course you are being overly optimistic in your assumption
Let me count the ways: We're not going to start expanding into
space at relativistic speed any time soon. People can't survive
packed together in a space-filling configuration. That much matter
would collapse on itself into a black hole in a few seconds' worth
of this hypothetical cubic expansion. That much matter doesn't
exist in the universe within probably a few days' worth.
I was deliberately choosing the assumptions to be ludicrously
optimistic. Yet exponential growth, if it could be sustained at a
rate that's realistic for short-term growth, would exceed it on a
historical time scale, not a geological one.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
>
> On 11/1/05, Dan Wylie-Sears wrote:
> > > Our galaxy is very vast, it can hold any population explosion.
> >
> > Expontentially many >> astronomically many.
> >
> > Given a continual expansion into space at a constant velocity,
call
> > it c, the population at time t is limited to what can fit into a
> > sphere of radius ct. For simplicity, I assume that people have a
> > mass of 100 kg and the density of water, and thus take up a
tenth of
> > a cubic meter each. The volume of people can't exceed the
volume of
> > the colonization sphere. Then I look at exponential growth with
a
> > doubling time of 30 years, and calculate how long it takes before
> > the volume of the population exceeds the volume of the
colonization
> > sphere: the exponential growth can't go on that long.
> >
> > It's been a while since I last plugged in the numbers, so I would
> > have to find the calculator. But it might be instructive to
take a
> > guess how soon unlimited growth becomes unfeasible, and then do
the
> > calculation yourself.
> (...)
>
> That's it, a mere power law will always loose to an exponential
one.
> Of course you are being overly optimistic in your assumption
because
> you are assuming only a limitation of space, while a realistic
> estimation would be limited by the amount of matter (resources) in
the
> space considered.
>
> The only way to escape the inevitability of population problems
would
> be... To also *create* new space and new matter exponentially as
> needed. Perhaps creating baby universes with some sort of godlike
> space-time engineering. Not a likely possibility, as far as we
know.
# 7038 byfelicia@... on Nov. 1, 2005, 9:49 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> Gay rights is unfortunately a double edged sword. While
> one can sympathize with the idea that two persons of the
> same sex would like to live their life together, we cannot
> escape the fact that children are born and they grow up in
> the same environment, and they inculcate the values of
> that environment. And with the kind of hardsell made
> possible by modern communication and media 90% of humans
> could be converted into homosexuals.
population would be homosexual. That seems to imply that
being gay is so much better than being straight that
everyone would want to do it, or else that homosexuals are
trying to convert people (and doing a good job at it).
Also, you seem to be saying that the desire to have
children would disappear for homosexuals. First off, with
the number of gay and lesbian couples in the US who are
trying to adopt or have children, I think the second
theory, that homosexual predominance would be the end of
population growth, isn't right. Now, back to the question
of percentages. I come from a very permissive community
where 75% of my friends are bisexual, a few are gay and a
few are straight. I think 95% of my bisexual friends are
in relationships with someone of the opposite sex at the
moment. This would indicate to me that, even in a
situation where someone is attracted to both men and
women, people generally are heterosexual. (Kinsey
information is useful for those who have questions about
bisexuals:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html)
Does anyone have any data that contradicts this? In the
novel I am writing, I assume that the homosexual
population on a station is about 15%, which is much higher
than the currently guessed rate of 3-6% (for men) in the
US. I don't think that statistic takes into account
bisexuals or lesbians or those whose sexuality is more of
a gray area, so my number might be high but probably not
terribly far off. Lastly, I don't think there are tons of
homosexuals out there trying to "convert" people. For
info on this, check out:
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
According to the American Psychological Association,
"Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early
adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although
we can choose whether to act on our feelings,
psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a
conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."
Don't worry, I won't be showing up at your front door with
a pamphlet on why it is better to be gay.
Speaking of population, I was reading "High Frontier" the
other day to try and figure out how O'Neill was fitting 10
million people into an O'Neill cylinder, and it looks to
me like that number is really high. He says that they can
live in the mountains near the end caps, but that doesn't
seem that realistic or feasible to me. Also, I am
constantly seeing proposals for space colonies in which it
is assumed that there will be enough space for people to
just build houses where ever and how ever they like. I
used city and district plans from "Carfree Cities" by J.
H. Crawford, and it looks to me like I would only be able
to fit about 4 and a half million people in a single
O'Neill cylinder without getting rid of green spaces
altogether. Am I just way off? Does anyone have any
comments on how people would be arranged inside these
stations? -- Felicia
# 7039 bysraj@... on Nov. 2, 2005, 2:08 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Please don't take out your calculator. I meant it only figuratively : - ). You are right, any local community will have to balance population with resources. But in terms of expanding into the galaxy - in the next, let us say 100,000 years - there should be no danger of running out of space.
From: Dan Wylie-Sears
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 1:05 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Star Trek Actor George Takei Comes Out
> Our galaxy is very vast, it can hold any population explosion.
Expontentially many >> astronomically many.
Given a continual expansion into space at a constant velocity, call
it c, the population at time t is limited to what can fit into a
sphere of radius ct. For simplicity, I assume that people have a
mass of 100 kg and the density of water, and thus take up a tenth of
a cubic meter each. The volume of people can't exceed the volume of
the colonization sphere. Then I look at exponential growth with a
doubling time of 30 years, and calculate how long it takes before
the volume of the population exceeds the volume of the colonization
sphere: the exponential growth can't go on that long.
It's been a while since I last plugged in the numbers, so I would
have to find the calculator. But it might be instructive to take a
guess how soon unlimited growth becomes unfeasible, and then do the
calculation yourself.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
>
> Our galaxy is very vast, it can hold any population explosion. My
guess is, once space habs around the solar system get established,
there will be the natural itch to move beyond it - a would say
within 200 years of space habs being established around the solar
system.
>
> Yes there is one problem though. Even travelling at 0.1% of the
velocity of light - 300 Km / sec - it will take more than 4000 years
to reach Alpha Centauris. (Will it be possible to reach higher
velocities?). The population in the flotila of star ships/habs
headed for Alpha Centauris will have to be kept stable.
>
> Selvaraj
>
> Lucio wrote:
>
> Although for some time (two or three centuries, I would guess)
there
> will be probably no need of population control in space, in the
long
> run that need will inevitably arise. Humanity can grow at an
> exponential rate, but on the other hand it can expand through a 3D
> space only at a much slower *cubic* rate, so in the end population
> will be forced into cubic expansion.
>
> From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
> To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 6:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Star Trek Actor George Takei Comes
Out
>
> On 10/31/05, sraj wrote:
> >
> > For normal kind of sexuality in a space hab, space cruiser,
space outposts, you would need equal number of men and women.
>
> It depends on how you define "normal kind of sexuality". I
assume that
> you mean men and women partitioned in stable couples.
>
> > Gay rights is unfortunately a double edged sword. While one
can sympathize with the
> > idea that two persons of the same sex would like to live their
life together, we cannot
> > escape the fact that children are born and they grow up in the
same environment, and
> > they inculcate the values of that environment. And with the
kind of hardsell made
> > possible by modern communication and media 90% of humans could
be converted into
> > homosexuals.
>
> Your opinion that sexual orientation is defined by the
environment
> alone would be considered controversial at best nowadays.
Anyhow, even
> if it were an environment-defined characteristic, what exactly
is the
> intrinsic problem of a society with a homosexuality rate of 90%?
>
> > My feeling on the subject is, homosexuality should be
tolerated but kept under wrap. Part > of the problem with sexuality
on planet earth may be that it has become important for us > to
control the human population, while the natural instinct is to have
as many children as > possible. With the promise that in space habs
it will be possible to accomodate hundreds > of billions of people,
family planning will hopefully no longer be required, and we will
see > once again the family cohesiveness that used to be seen in
large families.
>
> Although for some time (two or three centuries, I would guess)
there
> will be probably no need of population control in space, in the
long
> run that need will inevitably arise. Humanity can grow at an
> exponential rate, but on the other hand it can expand through a
3D
> space only at a much slower *cubic* rate, so in the end
population
> will be forced into cubic expansion.
>
# 7040 bysraj@... on Nov. 2, 2005, 2:08 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Felicia wrote:
where 75% of my friends are bisexual, a few are gay and a
few are straight.... (To be fair bisexual should be considered as provisionally gay)
...Lastly, I don't think there are tons of
homosexuals out there trying to "convert" people....
..."Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early
adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although
we can choose whether to act on our feelings,
psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a
conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."...
These statements appear to be mutually contradictory. The fact is humans are basically social creatures (intelligence would come a very distant second). We like to form part of the crowd - to belong. Humans also like to experiment (especially when they are affluent and don't know what to do with their time : - ). Experimentation will also occur when persons of the opposite sex are not available. The danger is we pass on values to the next generation. For the new generation their parent's values forms the frame of reference on which they build their own edifice.
Selvaraj
From: Felicia
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Star Trek Actor George Takei Comes Out
> Gay rights is unfortunately a double edged sword. While
> one can sympathize with the idea that two persons of the
> same sex would like to live their life together, we cannot
> escape the fact that children are born and they grow up in
> the same environment, and they inculcate the values of
> that environment. And with the kind of hardsell made
> possible by modern communication and media 90% of humans
> could be converted into homosexuals.
So, you are saying that without repression 90% of the
population would be homosexual. That seems to imply that
being gay is so much better than being straight that
everyone would want to do it, or else that homosexuals are
trying to convert people (and doing a good job at it).
Also, you seem to be saying that the desire to have
children would disappear for homosexuals. First off, with
the number of gay and lesbian couples in the US who are
trying to adopt or have children, I think the second
theory, that homosexual predominance would be the end of
population growth, isn't right. Now, back to the question
of percentages. I come from a very permissive community
where 75% of my friends are bisexual, a few are gay and a
few are straight. I think 95% of my bisexual friends are
in relationships with someone of the opposite sex at the
moment. This would indicate to me that, even in a
situation where someone is attracted to both men and
women, people generally are heterosexual. (Kinsey
information is useful for those who have questions about
bisexuals:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html)
Does anyone have any data that contradicts this? In the
novel I am writing, I assume that the homosexual
population on a station is about 15%, which is much higher
than the currently guessed rate of 3-6% (for men) in the
US. I don't think that statistic takes into account
bisexuals or lesbians or those whose sexuality is more of
a gray area, so my number might be high but probably not
terribly far off. Lastly, I don't think there are tons of
homosexuals out there trying to "convert" people. For
info on this, check out:
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
According to the American Psychological Association,
"Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early
adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although
we can choose whether to act on our feelings,
psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a
conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."
Don't worry, I won't be showing up at your front door with
a pamphlet on why it is better to be gay.
Speaking of population, I was reading "High Frontier" the
other day to try and figure out how O'Neill was fitting 10
million people into an O'Neill cylinder, and it looks to
me like that number is really high. He says that they can
live in the mountains near the end caps, but that doesn't
seem that realistic or feasible to me. Also, I am
constantly seeing proposals for space colonies in which it
is assumed that there will be enough space for people to
just build houses where ever and how ever they like. I
used city and district plans from "Carfree Cities" by J.
H. Crawford, and it looks to me like I would only be able
to fit about 4 and a half million people in a single
O'Neill cylinder without getting rid of green spaces
altogether. Am I just way off? Does anyone have any
comments on how people would be arranged inside these
stations? -- Felicia
# 7041 bytango_dancer@... on Nov. 2, 2005, 2:27 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Felicia" wrote:
> novel I am writing, I assume that the homosexual
> population on a station is about 15%, which is much higher
> than the currently guessed rate of 3-6% (for men) in the
> US.
You should incorporate evolutionary theorist, Dr. Gregory Cochran's
Gay Germ Theory into your story. That would surely give you a unique
angle and you could play up all sorts of dilemmas, like what should
your characters do if a vaccine is developed? What should be done
about parents who want to vaccinate while they're pregnant or the new
born children? That would certainly add some drama to your story that
no other novels have used.
There was a feature article on Cochran in The Atlantic, but if you're
not a subsciber, you can read a copy of the article here:
http://www.perutechnologies.com/germtheory.html
He recently made news with his paper on Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence,
which was covered by the New York Times, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03gene.html?ex=1275451200&en=efcc603583e17b54&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
TangoMan
# 7042 bydante_feditech@... on Nov. 2, 2005, 11 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: sraj
> These statements appear to be mutually contradictory. The fact is
> humans are basically social creatures (intelligence would come a
> very distant second). We like to form part of the crowd - to
> belong. Humans also like to experiment (especially when they are
> affluent and don't know what to do with their time : - ).
> Experimentation will also occur when persons of the opposite sex
> are not available. The danger is we pass on values to the next
> generation. For the new generation their parent's values forms
> the frame of reference on which they build their own edifice.
1960s, would you predict the phenomenon of cyber-sex, or prostitutes
unionising, or the obsession in some western countries over child abuse? A
1960s mother might understand the basic concern, but my god! Talking about
such things! In public! And that's just anglo-american society. Contrast
that with France, Sweden, or Japan - which all have radically different
standards to sexuality. With the march of technology, we might all have sex
dolls which are better than the real thing. With the march of progress,
bestiality/zoophilia might become legal - or socially acceptable. With the
march of religion we might go back to the atomic family - or to burning
adulterers. In fact if space colonies take off, it's likely that all these
things will come to pass at some point.
Wiuth the greatest respect, I think that people here who are worrying about
future trends in homosexuality are being a little conservative, and short
sighted. ;)
John
# 7043 bysraj@... on Nov. 2, 2005, 12:42 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
John, I am not trying to predict the future. But on the day someone succeeds in making a movie like say Sound of Music where all the seven children run into the arms of Mother 1 and Mother 2 (Or Father 1 and Father 2) - and the audience stand up to give a standing ovation - we will know that the homosexual camp have something to crow about. The normal kind of sexuality has evolved over 3.5 billion years, It is deeply imprinted in our DNA, I wonder whether through technology alone, a better alternative can be thought of in a short time.
Selvaraj
> From: sraj
> These statements appear to be mutually contradictory. The fact is
> humans are basically social creatures (intelligence would come a
> very distant second). We like to form part of the crowd - to
> belong. Humans also like to experiment (especially when they are
> affluent and don't know what to do with their time : - ).
> Experimentation will also occur when persons of the opposite sex
> are not available. The danger is we pass on values to the next
> generation. For the new generation their parent's values forms
> the frame of reference on which they build their own edifice.
It's very hard to predict the future of sexuality. If you were back in the
1960s, would you predict the phenomenon of cyber-sex, or prostitutes
unionising, or the obsession in some western countries over child abuse? A
1960s mother might understand the basic concern, but my god! Talking about
such things! In public! And that's just anglo-american society. Contrast
that with France, Sweden, or Japan - which all have radically different
standards to sexuality. With the march of technology, we might all have sex
dolls which are better than the real thing. With the march of progress,
bestiality/zoophilia might become legal - or socially acceptable. With the
march of religion we might go back to the atomic family - or to burning
adulterers. In fact if space colonies take off, it's likely that all these
things will come to pass at some point.
Wiuth the greatest respect, I think that people here who are worrying about
future trends in homosexuality are being a little conservative, and short
sighted. ;)
John
# 7044 bysraj@... on Nov. 2, 2005, 12:42 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
The bacteria analogy is interesting. I wonder whether there is some kind of a parallel on our own planet. Developed nations (with small populations) using up a large fraction of the natural resources - their way of life broadcast over media worldwide - Developing nations (with large populations) trying to achieve the same lifestyles.... Not enough natural resources ...... @#@ ..... Crash?!
Selvaraj
(I am from India)
Lucio wrote:
On 11/1/05, sraj wrote:
> Our galaxy is very vast, it can hold any population explosion. My guess is, once space habs around the solar system get established, there will be the natural itch to move beyond it - a would say within 200 years of space habs being established around the solar system.
>
> Yes there is one problem though. Even travelling at 0.1% of the velocity of light - 300 Km / sec - it will take more than 4000 years to reach Alpha Centauris. (Will it be possible to reach higher velocities?). The population in the flotila of star ships/habs headed for Alpha Centauris will have to be kept stable.
(...)
My idea of galaxy colonization is a bit different. In the last 10 or
15 years we have discovered for sure what astronomers have been
suspecting for decades: neither interstellar space is "empty" nor the
Solar System ends in Pluto's orbit. Beyond Pluto there is the Kuiper
Belt (and there is growing suspicion that there is another ring beyond
KB) with millions of comets and hundreds of small planets, and the
vast Oort Cloud, with billions of comets extending one or two
light-years in interstellar space. Other stars much likely have
similar clouds. Also, there is evidence of interstellar "rogue
planets" not tied to any sun. So, we do not have to "go to Alpha
Centauri" as classic FC authors were used to imagine, we just have to
move deeper and deeper in interstellar space, consuming planetesimal
after planetesimal and creating more and more habitats from their raw
materials. Colonization of the galaxy will rather remember a colony of
bacteria (habitats) growing in a nutritious medium (interstellar
space), instead of the classic analogy of Polynesians (interstellar
settlers) jumping from island to island (planetary system to planetary
system) in canoes (interstellar ships).
Now that I brought the bacteria colony analogy, I think that it will
be easier to understand why population growth and exhaustion of
resources will sooner or later become an issue for someone no matter
how big the galaxy is. When a bacteria colony starts to expand in a
nutritious medium (say, a petri dish), it starts as a circle that
grows in diameter as time passes. However, eventually the resources in
the center of the circle get exhausted and bacteria there start to
die, and so you will get an ever-expanding circular border of living
bacteria and an ever-expanding central disk of dead bacteria. One
could argue that innermost bacteria, when feeling that their resources
are running off, could always move to "unexplored" regions of the
petri dish, but chances are that bacteria of the outermost layers will
get there first.
In the same way, if we imagine our swarm of self-replicating habitats
as an expanding sphere, in the center of the sphere resources will get
exhausted and the habitats will not be able to replicate endlessly
there anymore. If some habitats choose to move to the "surface" of the
sphere, much likely someone that is closer to the outer layer will get
to those untapped resources first. And so the only alternative to the
habitats will be recycling and population stagnation. In due time, not
even that.
# 7045 byxenophile2002@... on Nov. 2, 2005, 6:54 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers, sraj wrote:
> succeeds in making a movie like say Sound of Music where all the
> seven children run into the arms of Mother 1 and Mother 2 (Or
> Father 1 and Father 2) - and the audience stand up to give a
> standing ovation - we will know that the homosexual camp have
> something to crow about. The normal kind of sexuality has evolved
> over 3.5 billion years, It is deeply imprinted in our DNA, I wonder
> whether through technology alone, a better alternative can be
> thought of in a short time.
>
> The Ying and Yang concept is very fundamental in philosophy.
In Japan, over a million people shed tears as, on a prime-time
television series, tough but beautiful Tenno Haruka used the last of
her ebbing strength to reach for her lover's hand. This lover, the
graceful beauty Kiou Michiru, smiled as she faded from life. The two
women were able to speak one phrase before leaving this world: "I
love you." Tears flowed throughout Japan.
So it's already happened, just not in the US (where Haruka and
Michiru: the lovers, were renamed Amura and Michelle: the cousins.
This ticked me off to no end, my GF telling me that she actually
heard me say once in my sleep: "They are NOT cousins!").
# 7046 bylucioc@... on Nov. 3, 2005, 1:47 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 11/1/05, sraj wrote:
(...)
> These statements appear to be mutually contradictory. The fact is humans are basically social creatures (intelligence would come a very distant second). We like to form part of the crowd - to belong. Humans also like to experiment (especially when they are affluent and don't know what to do with their time : - ). Experimentation will also occur when persons of the opposite sex are not available. The danger is we pass on values to the next generation. For the new generation their parent's values forms the frame of reference on which they build their own edifice.
(...)
the next generations means the end of the world (as I think you are
implying). There were several civilizations were some forms homosexual
relationships were accepted and even stimulated, like ancient Greece
or many tribes of Papua/New Guinea until the 70's. The Italy of the
Renaissance seems to have been kind of permissive too. And those
civilizations did not collapse because of that.
# 7047 bysraj@... on Nov. 3, 2005, 5:41 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
The danger I see is because of technology. In Greek times, the Renaissance, at least small children would have been isolated from such ideas when they were at an impressionable age. It would have been a purely adult thing. Live In relationships have already caught on in India, though they are probably only 20 or 30 years old in the west. Much is known about the negative aspects of such relationships, where adults fail to make a commitment.
Selvaraj
From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Star Trek Actor George Takei Comes Out
On 11/1/05, sraj wrote:
(...)
> These statements appear to be mutually contradictory. The fact is humans are basically social creatures (intelligence would come a very distant second). We like to form part of the crowd - to belong. Humans also like to experiment (especially when they are affluent and don't know what to do with their time : - ). Experimentation will also occur when persons of the opposite sex are not available. The danger is we pass on values to the next generation. For the new generation their parent's values forms the frame of reference on which they build their own edifice.
(...)
I still fail to understand why passing acceptance of homosexuality to
the next generations means the end of the world (as I think you are
implying). There were several civilizations were some forms homosexual
relationships were accepted and even stimulated, like ancient Greece
or many tribes of Papua/New Guinea until the 70's. The Italy of the
Renaissance seems to have been kind of permissive too. And those
civilizations did not collapse because of that.
# 7048 bylucioc@... on Nov. 3, 2005, 6:55 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 11/3/05, sraj wrote:
(...)
> As in engineering, so also in our social usages, there should be a margin of safety, where we don't tip the balance too much in a negative direction. As you know there is negative population growth in developed nations; If the reason for this is the awareness that our planet is overpopulated then this negative growth is to be commended. Otherwise one has to wonder about the reason.
(...)
some concern about population excess, I think, but just because in a
highly developed society the cost of raising children is also higher,
and so couples there choose to minimize cost by having less children
(many couples opt for having only one child, for instance) and
investing all that they can afford in that small (often equal to one)
number of children.
I got the impression that perhaps you think that increasing acceptance
of homosexuality is reflecting in declining birth rates in those
countries, but any statistic that you consult will point that
heterosexual couples are the vast majority (over 90%, usually) but
they choose to have few children. Remember that even the most
heterosexual couple on Earth will have zero children with the woman
uses contraceptives or the man uses condoms. (On the other hand,
nothing impedes a homosexual man or woman to conceive a child in a
single casual sex relation with a person from the opposite sex, if no
contraceptive method is used.)
# 7049 byfelicia@... on Nov. 3, 2005, 9:19 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> The danger I see is because of technology. In Greek times,
> the Renaissance, at least small children would have been
> isolated from such ideas when they were at an
> impressionable age. It would have been a purely adult
> thing. Live In relationships have already caught on in
> India, though they are probably only 20 or 30 years old in
> the west. Much is known about the negative aspects of such
> relationships, where adults fail to make a commitment.
you are saying? The American Psychological Association
would seem to clearly disagree with you. More information
is available at: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html. Also,
I think your Greek history might be a little off too.
As many people have pointed out, bickering about the
sexuality of future generations is highly problematic.
Also, this is rapidly becoming horribly off topic. --
Felicia