I am impressed by the range and civility of recent discussions,
which I see containing in common a desire to grapple with great
problems of Humanity. It is inevitable that whiffs of politics,
religion and even sex eventually drift into these discussions. In my
view when relevant aspects to the problems Space colonization
addresses are the context for such talk I have found it enlightening.
It occurs to me that in discussing cultural trends different than
ones own it is useful to not assume the motives of those who behave in
ways you don't understand are less worty than those ideals you hold dear.

> > how many childless couples do you know.

Many of my friends had no children at all. They are professional
people who followed theor 'calling' in life and I applaud anyone who
demonstrates the ability to direct ones life constructively. It is not
'selfish' to delay, limit, or even to not have children. Sex is for
'couple bonding' as much as it is to have children. Sometimes it's
just for fun! The more people who think of sex and procreation as not
automatically linked the better quality of life the existing children,
presumably deliberate, will enjoy.

> Hi,
>
> Life is for suffering. Or does they believe life is just for enjoying
> pleasures and have fun?

Life is for enjoying as much as one can. Every spiritual,
hedonistic, or intellectual pursuit which one finds fulfilling
(involving consenting adults) is fair game. One must balance the
'equasion' by working to support ones self and a family if you choose
to have one but there is no 'quota' of suffering one necessarily
'owes' the Universe for every pleasure you have.

> That's the difference between societies that survive and societies
> that get extingished. Romans passed from the same experience once, and
> the barbarians (stronger in those times) got rid of them, because
> Barbarians loved life, and Romans only enjoyed pleasures.

There are many reasons for the declines and fall of both the Western
(Roman) and Eastern (Byzantine) empires. The alleged pleasureable
proclivities of the populace probably are not high on the factors.
Both were Christian nations when they were overrun. If you mean the
decline of pre Christian culture, there were several reasons,
including the over reliance on a slave class and the steady rise of
surrounding nationalities. Christianity at the time also temded to
regard non religous literature as outside what they wanted people to
be thinking about so science and secular thought in general was
allowed to decline.

>
> Al least in Latin America, although people does not have large numer
> of kids anymore, people believe that having kids is not a choice: it
> is a duty with society and with God.

Your reasoning for this statement is presumably religion driven, it
is your 'world view' that is valid for you and for people of like
mind. It is not valid for lots of other people who think of Human
affairs outside relogious contests.

Overpopulation is a concept that has as its roots the idea that
Human beings can achieve an overview of the global picture and do
something about problems requiring attention. It presumes a role as
'overseer' to that which is being observed, a role historically
assigned to 'nature' or religous entities. Let is be observant: it
required all the time from the emergence of Humanity a millionish
years ago until about the 1850's for the Human population to reach one
billion people. One billion people were added to the worlds population
in the last dozen years!
Space migration is no cure for overpopulation, indeed it is not
relevant at all due to the concievable launch rate vs 'concievable'
human growth rate;-) Space habitats are a means of preserving and
propagating what of Human cultures people desire. Their societies will
be what their people decide to make of them.
I am sure there will be Puritan and Teliban style theocracies where
populations are encouraged to think certain ways and not to act in
others, and liberal communal societies where everything that won't
destroy the habitat is permitted. There will be societies like China
where fertility cycles are monitored by government agencies to prevent
births,and others like Romania under Chuchescu where similar
monitoring was used to prevent pregnency termination.
>
> I hope that does not change in the future because of American media
> influences.
>
Part of the brewing war between Islam and the West is the spreading
of American and Western ways through mass media. One cannot really
live in isolation, despite the ban on movie theaters in Saudi Arabia
or of rooftop dishes in Iran. There is a fine line between maintaining
a culture for its own sake and repression against outside influences.
I think it is an overall good thing to make people dissatisfied with
the status quo. It is good to promote the idea that any kid growing
up, even in a poor country, could have access to the sum total of
information on a subject of interest. I grew up in the San Francisco
area during the 'cultural revolution of the late 1960's'
http://www.donaldedavis.com/DEC99NEW/DDs60s.html
And I found the atmosphere of intellectual and personal freedom to be
something I would never trade for any other place or time in Human
history. From the reappraisal during those times of what Humanity was
capable of also emerged the idea overpopulation as well as of of space
colonisation. It is good to promote big dreams and to encourage
thinking 'outside the box'.

Don Davis

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Don Davis" wrote:
>
> Many of my friends had no children at all. They are professional
> people who followed theor 'calling' in life and I applaud anyone who
> demonstrates the ability to direct ones life constructively. It is
not
> 'selfish' to delay, limit, or even to not have children. Sex is for
> 'couple bonding' as much as it is to have children. Sometimes it's
> just for fun! The more people who think of sex and procreation as not
> automatically linked the better quality of life the existing
children,
> presumably deliberate, will enjoy.
>

im only going to reply to this one part, because i agree totally with
the rest.

in this part, i should have stated that with the term i was using, i
was meaning the ones that have the compacity to have children, but
not the one that are poseponing it. those who are postponeing child
raising are, in my mind, still having them, just at a time of their
own choising. IMHO, i beleive that sex is a way of expressing things
between members of a family, be it a traditional one man, one woman
marriage, gay or lesbian one or something with more ppl, that cant be
expressed by words alone.

> > Al least in Latin America, although people does not have large
>>>numer
> > of kids anymore, people believe that having kids is not a
>>>choice: it
> > is a duty with society and with God.
>
> Your reasoning for this statement is presumably religion driven, it
> is your 'world view' that is valid for you and for people of like
> mind. It is not valid for lots of other people who think of Human
> affairs outside relogious contests.
>

Hi,

Yes, more than "my" world view is my society's point of view.

Actually I am agnostic.

However, there is a way to test world views with respect to
reproduction:

People that don't want to have children get extinguished in one
generation. They will not have descendents that propagate their ideas.

So mankind EVOLVES to preserve life rather than to maximize pleasure.

In other terms the "fittest" is the one that reproduce. The other ones
go to the garbage can of evolution.

It's darwin my dear Watson!

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- In spacesettlers, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:

> However, there is a way to test world views with respect to
> reproduction:
>
> People that don't want to have children get extinguished in one
> generation. They will not have descendents that propagate their
> ideas.

This assumes that ideas are propogated parent to child, and not
through other means. Like message boards. Schools. Churches.
Polititians. What the "cool" people are doing.

Remember that everybody who is deciding not to have children is
descended from ancestors who DID have children.

Besides, an individule might not reproduce, but if enough in his
society do, then the society continues. Though the "Let's do it for
our country" line was amusing in _Grease 2_.

> > However, there is a way to test world views with respect to
> > reproduction:
> >
> > People that don't want to have children get extinguished in one
> > generation. They will not have descendents that propagate their
> > ideas.
>
>This assumes that ideas are propogated parent to child, and not
>through other means. Like message boards. Schools. Churches.
>Polititians. What the "cool" people are doing.
>
>Remember that everybody who is deciding not to have children is
>descended from ancestors who DID have children.
>
>Besides, an individule might not reproduce, but if enough in his
>society do, then the society continues. Though the "Let's do it for
>our country" line was amusing in _Grease 2_.

Advice on the honeymoon night from an actual women's manual published in
Victorian England 100+ years ago: "Try to enjoy yourself, but if not, lie
still and think of England." (as in, you're doing a good thing for the
country by keeping you man at home, and possibly getting pregnant).

One thing that never came up in this discussion thread is the natural
science behind human population increase. The natural progress of human
populations, as with most animal and plant populations, is to grow until the
carrying capacity of the environment is reached. Earth's population is
spiraling higher and higher, as the burden of disease is reduced, and
technology makes food and shelter more abundant. The alarming and tragic
episodes of starvation in Africa are an example of a population bumping up
against the limits of its environment's ability to sustain it. The more
foreign agencies import resources to sustain those populations, the more we
help Africa's population grow past their ability to feed themselves. (I'm
not so hard-hearted as to say that the solution is to cut off aid and let
millions die who could be saved; but I do believe that food aid absolutely
must be balanced with education, population control assistance and economic
and infrastructure improvements). Granted, many countries have slowed or
stopped population growth. This is something completely new in the world.
It may have to do with the flood of images of famine and crowding that we
see from other parts of the world. Or it may have to do with women's
searching for a new role in society, having thrown off the yoke of being the
abject baby factory. Or it may just be selfishness. But the long-term
history of humanity suggests growth will return.

Since orbital habitats are man-made, as long as humans in orbit are willing
to continue building habitats, the natural history of humanity suggests that
the orbital population will continue to grow. The only factor limiting the
growth of the orbital human population is the amount of energy produced by
Sol, which is huge, but finite.

Brad W

the only thing about this i could find to disagree with is that part
about Africa. the problem there is not the population is too big for
the incoming food, its that the food and money does not get where is
suppose to. 80 to 90 percent of the food and 95 percent of the money
disappears before it gets to the ppl that are suppose to receive it.
simultaneously, some big wig African bureaucrats bank account gets
bigger.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
>
> Advice on the honeymoon night from an actual women's manual
published in
> Victorian England 100+ years ago: "Try to enjoy yourself, but if
not, lie
> still and think of England." (as in, you're doing a good thing for
the
> country by keeping you man at home, and possibly getting pregnant).
>
> One thing that never came up in this discussion thread is the
natural
> science behind human population increase. The natural progress of
human
> populations, as with most animal and plant populations, is to grow
until the
> carrying capacity of the environment is reached. Earth's
population is
> spiraling higher and higher, as the burden of disease is reduced,
and
> technology makes food and shelter more abundant. The alarming and
tragic
> episodes of starvation in Africa are an example of a population
bumping up
> against the limits of its environment's ability to sustain it. The
more
> foreign agencies import resources to sustain those populations, the
more we
> help Africa's population grow past their ability to feed
themselves. (I'm
> not so hard-hearted as to say that the solution is to cut off aid
and let
> millions die who could be saved; but I do believe that food aid
absolutely
> must be balanced with education, population control assistance and
economic
> and infrastructure improvements). Granted, many countries have
slowed or
> stopped population growth. This is something completely new in the
world.
> It may have to do with the flood of images of famine and crowding
that we
> see from other parts of the world. Or it may have to do with
women's
> searching for a new role in society, having thrown off the yoke of
being the
> abject baby factory. Or it may just be selfishness. But the long-
term
> history of humanity suggests growth will return.
>
> Since orbital habitats are man-made, as long as humans in orbit are
willing
> to continue building habitats, the natural history of humanity
suggests that
> the orbital population will continue to grow. The only factor
limiting the
> growth of the orbital human population is the amount of energy
produced by

Hi,

>
> > > However, there is a way to test world views with respect to
> > > reproduction:
> > >
> > > People that don't want to have children get extinguished in one
> > > generation. They will not have descendents that propagate their
> > > ideas.
> >
> >This assumes that ideas are propogated parent to child, and not
> >through other means. Like message boards. Schools. Churches.
> >Polititians. What the "cool" people are doing.

If parents don't have children there are no ideas to propagate.
That's the point.

> >Besides, an individule might not reproduce, but if enough in his
> >society do, then the society continues.

At least is replaced by other peoples. That is actually what is
going on in Western Europe and North America. If things continue
like today, Europe and the United States won't be recognizable in
the future for a current citizen of those countries.

> One thing that never came up in this discussion thread is the
>natural
> science behind human population increase.

As far as I know the explaination is quite simple. The improvements
in medicine, particularly vaccination campaigns reduce the death
rate worldwide. Before that most kids died before becomming adults.

>...but I do believe that food aid absolutely
> must be balanced with education, population control assistance and
>economic
> and infrastructure improvements...

Absolutely. "Giving a fish" does not solve the problem. You have to
teach the guys to catch their own fishes. And population control is
an important part of it.

> Granted, many countries have slowed or
> stopped population growth. This is something completely new in
>the world.
> It may have to do with the flood of images of famine and crowding
>that we
> see from other parts of the world.

Sorry, but that's quite idiotic. People in Europe and in North
America are the ones facing extinction; not Africans.

>Or it may have to do with women's
> searching for a new role in society, having thrown off the yoke of
>being the
> abject baby factory.

Well, only "baby factories" will have descendents. The
other "successful" women will become something so old-fashionated
like dinosaurs. The sad part is that many women just want to be
mothers when is already too late.

>Or it may just be selfishness. But the long-term
> history of humanity suggests growth will return.

Who knows? Nobody can assure that.

>
> Since orbital habitats are man-made, as long as humans in orbit
>are willing
> to continue building habitats, the natural history of humanity
>suggests that
> the orbital population will continue to grow. The only factor
>limiting the
> growth of the orbital human population is the amount of energ
>produced by
> Sol, which is huge, but finite.

Agree!

Regards,

Omar Vega