Dear space settlers,

I've been writing that blessed story I asked for help on earlier, and
lurking, and wish to revisit several topics we discussed earlier that
have become elements of the story. The question is women. Yes, a bit
broad, that, let's narrow it,.

It was pointed out that there may be a change regarding population
once a space colony is up and running. We could go from feeling
overpopulated to feeling underpopulated. The question was asked, how
will be induce women to have children again?

But no, it's more than that. How will we induce women to menstruate
again? We are within weeks of menstruation being optional with a new
hormone regimine available in pill form ready for government approval.
It will be approved, have no doubt. Women will now take that last step
into being full blown little men, with unending work hours, no break
at all for (also optional) pregnancy, no "light work" days for those
crazy enough to choose to continue to bleed. We can expect that
employers will make suppression of menstruation officially or
unofficially mandatory, in fact, just as it is officially or
unofficially mandatory that children must never, ever interrupt the
flow of the workday and profits. Women will be expected, now, to "pull
their own weight" in the job market on the basis of justice, of
fairness, and, we will never mention it openly, of profits. If that
takes doing a certain amount of subtle violence to the female human
body, it is worth it, the marketeers will tell us, to end the
dominition of PMS forever ("you know why they call it PMS? they will
joke. Because Mad Cow Disease was taken.").

How will we induce women, in fact, to be women again, now that society
is in full open war against womanhood itself?

Because we fear overpopulation so much, we have simply made it almost
impossible for women to be women. You will not cure that by
withholding hormones (the plan we were discussing, as I recall--need
more workers on the colony? Just "forget" to make birth control
chemicals or mechanicals) if you continue to advocate and plan for a
society that does not recognize and appreciate the differences between
men and women and recognize a more forgiving definition of gender
equity that allows women to be women without giving up a place of
respect in society or a means to support oneself. Make a place for
people who are a little wiggy once a month. Make a place for the
natural in the new world. Make a place and a time for women to rest.

Otherwise, if you call for population growth by whatever means
necessary without adjusting other features in society, you are calling
for the worst kind of slavery for women, and you can expect the same
kind of strange fruit that always eventually grows from oppression,
that is, failure. Unfortunately it could mean failure for the colony
and for the human race.

Men such as yourselves who obviously care about the future of the
human race must begin NOW to fight for womanhood as a right (instead
of the false "right" of abortion, the false "right" of some kind of
total "ownership" of the female body). That has lots of implications,
socially, legally, culturally, economically (for example, men's wages
have fallen for decades in relation to women's wages--that's how the
great leaps forward in women's wages have been possible, and they are
in fact a mirage--and this should stop. Men should earn enough to
support a family NOW, not on a future colony, and should be held
accountable to do so, for that matter. Make it economically possible
for women to have children NOW and we will not face the problem in the
future, and in fact, we will support the drive for colonization now,
as well. The two concepts are linked. They are linked to a great many
other concepts as well that are fertile ground for fiction and the pun
is so intended.

Jan Baker

It is my observation that such medical 'innovations' once they become
openly available ultimately prove themselves harmful and are then
withdrawn. Certainly I am appalled by western man's current
scientific all out war on nature in humanity. Rather than embrace
science and move to new fields such as space or build huge
omnibuilding cities and cities under water. But we have actually been
down this path before during the Roman empire which made
contreception freely available. Man ultimately rejected this darkness
and walked into the light so in the long run will those of us now and
in the future when we move into space.

The US has the best system for developing and releasing medications
to the market but even that system makes mistakes. Norplant comes to
mind along with Thelidimide. This kind of chemical tampering with the
body smells of these things.

As the discussion has gone so far, most expect once people move into
space the vast availability of resources will create a fertile spirit
which will lead to a baby boom. What happens after that is up for
debate but I believe people as our ancestors who created New France
and New England did before them will grab hold of the great new
frontier by creating large families.

People who tend to indulge in debauchery tend not to be among the
pioneering mindset. They will undoubtedly stay on earth. Remain
infertile either by choice or by consequences of their actions and
they will die out.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
wrote:
>
> Dear space settlers,
>
> I've been writing that blessed story I asked for help on earlier,
and
> lurking, and wish to revisit several topics we discussed earlier
that
> have become elements of the story. The question is women. Yes, a
bit
> broad, that, let's narrow it,.
>
> It was pointed out that there may be a change regarding population
> once a space colony is up and running. We could go from feeling
> overpopulated to feeling underpopulated. The question was asked,
how
> will be induce women to have children again?
>
> But no, it's more than that. How will we induce women to menstruate
> again? We are within weeks of menstruation being optional with a
new
> hormone regimine available in pill form ready for government
approval.
> It will be approved, have no doubt. Women will now take that last
step
> into being full blown little men, with unending work hours, no
break
> at all for (also optional) pregnancy, no "light work" days for
those
> crazy enough to choose to continue to bleed. We can expect that
> employers will make suppression of menstruation officially or
> unofficially mandatory, in fact, just as it is officially or
> unofficially mandatory that children must never, ever interrupt the
> flow of the workday and profits. Women will be expected, now,
to "pull
> their own weight" in the job market on the basis of justice, of
> fairness, and, we will never mention it openly, of profits. If that
> takes doing a certain amount of subtle violence to the female human
> body, it is worth it, the marketeers will tell us, to end the
> dominition of PMS forever ("you know why they call it PMS? they
will
> joke. Because Mad Cow Disease was taken.").
>
> How will we induce women, in fact, to be women again, now that
society
> is in full open war against womanhood itself?
>
> Because we fear overpopulation so much, we have simply made it
almost
> impossible for women to be women. You will not cure that by
> withholding hormones (the plan we were discussing, as I recall--
need
> more workers on the colony? Just "forget" to make birth control
> chemicals or mechanicals) if you continue to advocate and plan for
a
> society that does not recognize and appreciate the differences
between
> men and women and recognize a more forgiving definition of gender
> equity that allows women to be women without giving up a place of
> respect in society or a means to support oneself. Make a place for
> people who are a little wiggy once a month. Make a place for the
> natural in the new world. Make a place and a time for women to
rest.
>
> Otherwise, if you call for population growth by whatever means
> necessary without adjusting other features in society, you are
calling
> for the worst kind of slavery for women, and you can expect the
same
> kind of strange fruit that always eventually grows from oppression,
> that is, failure. Unfortunately it could mean failure for the
colony
> and for the human race.
>
> Men such as yourselves who obviously care about the future of the
> human race must begin NOW to fight for womanhood as a right
(instead
> of the false "right" of abortion, the false "right" of some kind of
> total "ownership" of the female body). That has lots of
implications,
> socially, legally, culturally, economically (for example, men's
wages
> have fallen for decades in relation to women's wages--that's how
the
> great leaps forward in women's wages have been possible, and they
are
> in fact a mirage--and this should stop. Men should earn enough to
> support a family NOW, not on a future colony, and should be held
> accountable to do so, for that matter. Make it economically
possible
> for women to have children NOW and we will not face the problem in
the
> future, and in fact, we will support the drive for colonization
now,
> as well. The two concepts are linked. They are linked to a great
many
> other concepts as well that are fertile ground for fiction and the
pun

Dear Terrierkeeper,

In principle you seem correct to say that when people use
maladaptive behaviors, they tend to extinguish themselves, and
another group of people who did not use maladaptive behaviors take
their place. But it's a lazy answer, "Don't worry, be happy." And it
doesn't apply here. We are talking about all of humanity now, not
one or another section of it, as in your examples, and we are
talking also of the responsibility that a person might have during
the critical period of time in which the behavior can still be
changed, stopped.

The reason we are talking about all humanity is that the earth is
taking on a kind of "world culture" instead of widely separated
groups of people who thus might have a chance to avoid contamination
or temptation. Communication has united us and it could unite us in
a death trap. So your comments become way less reassuring, unless a
reader really doesn't care if humanity survives or not, so long as
life somewhere survives. Which would be totally stupid.

No, we should be on humanity's side and we should be fighting now to
survive in the future. If enough Romans had struggled against the
maladaptive behaviors (notice how even now neither one of us spells
it out, exactly what is meant by that; cause we sure don't want to
be politically incorrect, or maybe uncharitable, to take a kinder
interpretation; but it is possible to tell the truth charitably, it
just takes balls), maybe Rome would have continued to dominate.
Maybe their system, which was pretty good, would have jumped us
ahead a few generations, maintained "the peace of Rome" a while
more, and we'd already be on a space colony by now. It mattered.
Maybe it even still matters, sort of like sound going out into the
universe forever.

I said in my other post, it's past time, men should get back in the
game, quit swallowing every piece of garbage the media pimps, quit
nodding and smiling, quit shucking and jiving. I stand by that in
spite of your literate answer. If you care about it, and you know
something is wrong, start speaking up, or change your own behavior.
Men could stop sleeping around--cause that's maladaptive. They could
start taking care of single and divorced and widowed women, letting
them, helping them be women again instead of the insanity of
the "single mom." Women need men, it's bullshit we don't. You guys
reading this could object every time the masculine role or men in
general are disrespected (I DO and I'm a woman). They could lean
heavier on the azzholes. They could start telling women to worry
less, there's gonna be more good men, hang on, and quit dressing
like whores by the way, please. The man reading this could quit
using pornography and promise himself that he will respect his own
manhood enough to express it ONLY with a real person who he wants to
make babies with. Forever. Lots of them. A kind of pre-colony move.
SO WE'LL GET THERE.

I can just hear a bunch of guys screaming, "we tried that! I tried
opening the door for her and she said..." Right, right. But now
we're ten or twenty years down the road, and what woman in her right
mind cannot see the handwriting on the wall with abortion and gay
marriage? Are we better off? Happier? Healthier? Look up some
statistics and you'll see the clear answer to all these is, No. So
you have a better chance now of convincing women to abandon
feminism, which, as we have been discussing, could actually wreck a
space colony and could kill mankind. And also which didn't develop
all by itself, only by women, by the way.

Hey, suffer me to say one more thing: if you're gay, look, I'm not
asking you to do anything that I myself am not obligated to do as a
single woman. I may not exercise "my" sexuality, because I am not
married. If I were to exercise "my" sexuality outside of marriage
and outside of the act of creation of new life, I would affect
society deeply even if slowly. It's just not "mine." And it's
not "yours," either. That is not to say either one of us won't be
lonely sometimes. It's something we can bear, though.

And I support you, I really do, as a gay person, your right to
otherwise dress and act however you feel moved, without
discrimination against you. And I speak up when I hear it. That
doesn't mean I have to rent a house to you and your lover, or
support your adopting kids. Serve kids in other ways.
Give up sex. Sublimate, for the sake of the whole. It worked for
centuries. The ability to do so is the mark of a quality humanity.
We need it now. I hope saying that makes reading it a little less
bitter. I know it must be, very bitter. You're not responsible for
being gay (well,I'm not responsible for being a woman, either, and
Joe Blow's not responsible that his dad died young, and all the
other rolls of the dice)but you can deal with it responsibly if you
choose to.

And the rest of youse heterosexual guys, get to work, would'ja?

Sorry to go on so,
Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
>
> It is my observation that such medical 'innovations' once they
become
> openly available ultimately prove themselves harmful and are then
> withdrawn. Certainly I am appalled by western man's current
> scientific all out war on nature in humanity. Rather than embrace
> science and move to new fields such as space or build huge
> omnibuilding cities and cities under water. But we have actually
been
> down this path before during the Roman empire which made
> contreception freely available. Man ultimately rejected this
darkness
> and walked into the light so in the long run will those of us now
and
> in the future when we move into space.
>
> The US has the best system for developing and releasing
medications
> to the market but even that system makes mistakes. Norplant comes
to
> mind along with Thelidimide. This kind of chemical tampering with
the
> body smells of these things.
>
> As the discussion has gone so far, most expect once people move
into
> space the vast availability of resources will create a fertile
spirit
> which will lead to a baby boom. What happens after that is up for
> debate but I believe people as our ancestors who created New
France
> and New England did before them will grab hold of the great new
> frontier by creating large families.
>
> People who tend to indulge in debauchery tend not to be among the
> pioneering mindset. They will undoubtedly stay on earth. Remain
> infertile either by choice or by consequences of their actions and
> they will die out.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear space settlers,
> >
> > I've been writing that blessed story I asked for help on
earlier,
> and
> > lurking, and wish to revisit several topics we discussed earlier
> that
> > have become elements of the story. The question is women. Yes, a
> bit
> > broad, that, let's narrow it,.
> >
> > It was pointed out that there may be a change regarding
population
> > once a space colony is up and running. We could go from feeling
> > overpopulated to feeling underpopulated. The question was asked,
> how
> > will be induce women to have children again?
> >
> > But no, it's more than that. How will we induce women to
menstruate
> > again? We are within weeks of menstruation being optional with a
> new
> > hormone regimine available in pill form ready for government
> approval.
> > It will be approved, have no doubt. Women will now take that
last
> step
> > into being full blown little men, with unending work hours, no
> break
> > at all for (also optional) pregnancy, no "light work" days for
> those
> > crazy enough to choose to continue to bleed. We can expect that
> > employers will make suppression of menstruation officially or
> > unofficially mandatory, in fact, just as it is officially or
> > unofficially mandatory that children must never, ever interrupt
the
> > flow of the workday and profits. Women will be expected, now,
> to "pull
> > their own weight" in the job market on the basis of justice, of
> > fairness, and, we will never mention it openly, of profits. If
that
> > takes doing a certain amount of subtle violence to the female
human
> > body, it is worth it, the marketeers will tell us, to end the
> > dominition of PMS forever ("you know why they call it PMS? they
> will
> > joke. Because Mad Cow Disease was taken.").
> >
> > How will we induce women, in fact, to be women again, now that
> society
> > is in full open war against womanhood itself?
> >
> > Because we fear overpopulation so much, we have simply made it
> almost
> > impossible for women to be women. You will not cure that by
> > withholding hormones (the plan we were discussing, as I recall--
> need
> > more workers on the colony? Just "forget" to make birth control
> > chemicals or mechanicals) if you continue to advocate and plan
for
> a
> > society that does not recognize and appreciate the differences
> between
> > men and women and recognize a more forgiving definition of
gender
> > equity that allows women to be women without giving up a place
of
> > respect in society or a means to support oneself. Make a place
for
> > people who are a little wiggy once a month. Make a place for the
> > natural in the new world. Make a place and a time for women to
> rest.
> >
> > Otherwise, if you call for population growth by whatever means
> > necessary without adjusting other features in society, you are
> calling
> > for the worst kind of slavery for women, and you can expect the
> same
> > kind of strange fruit that always eventually grows from
oppression,
> > that is, failure. Unfortunately it could mean failure for the
> colony
> > and for the human race.
> >
> > Men such as yourselves who obviously care about the future of
the
> > human race must begin NOW to fight for womanhood as a right
> (instead
> > of the false "right" of abortion, the false "right" of some kind
of
> > total "ownership" of the female body). That has lots of
> implications,
> > socially, legally, culturally, economically (for example, men's
> wages
> > have fallen for decades in relation to women's wages--that's how
> the
> > great leaps forward in women's wages have been possible, and
they
> are
> > in fact a mirage--and this should stop. Men should earn enough
to
> > support a family NOW, not on a future colony, and should be held
> > accountable to do so, for that matter. Make it economically
> possible
> > for women to have children NOW and we will not face the problem
in
> the
> > future, and in fact, we will support the drive for colonization
> now,
> > as well. The two concepts are linked. They are linked to a great
> many
> > other concepts as well that are fertile ground for fiction and
the

Wow. What a pointless bit of moralistic "do it my way or else"
ranting. Makes me want to download porn. Gay porn. And I'm straight.

Now, of course you have the right to have your opinions, to state your
opinions, and to try to persuade others to hold the same opinions you
do. You have these rights whether or not I, or anybody else, thinks
that your opinions are worthwhile. Even if your ideas are not
popular; even if they are.

But so do I. And my opinion is that a bunch of guys swearing off porn
and a bunch of gals swearing of birth control pills isn't going to get
us into space any faster. Building better rockets or finding
something better THAN rockets will get us into space faster. There
are perfectly good reasons husbands and wives shouldn't cheat on each
other, and none of them have diddle-squat to do with space.

You do know that zero-G porn has been made already?
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/uranus_experiment_000516.html

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
wrote:

> The reason we are talking about all humanity is that the earth is
taking on a kind of "world culture" instead of widely separated
groups of people who thus might have a chance to avoid contamination
or temptation.

This process is true basically within the industrialised Western
world. The world is however undergoing deep divisions as well as
consolidation within these major groups. Radical Islam is emerging as
an 'alternative lifestyle' to the liberalizing influence of Western
mass communication. Thus you see movies and ready access to
international mass media restricted in places like Iran and Saudi
Arabia. They also ban birth control in order to try to assure the
dominance of traditionalist society, based on religion. Perhaps such
societies would be to your liking.
I am for giving more choices to people, not less. the very affluence
in western civilization which makes luxeries like space travel
possible are largely due to low birth rates allowing greater career
choices to millions of people, including women.

> If enough Romans had struggled against the
maladaptive behaviors (notice how even now neither one of us spells
it out, exactly what is meant by that; cause we sure don't want to
be politically incorrect, or maybe uncharitable, to take a kinder
interpretation; but it is possible to tell the truth charitably, it
just takes balls), maybe Rome would have continued to dominate.
Maybe their system, which was pretty good, would have jumped us
ahead a few generations, maintained "the peace of Rome" a while
more, and we'd already be on a space colony by now.

So... you are hinting that acceptance of alternate (such as gay)
life styles led to the fall of Rome and the collapse of civilization?
This is an old canard repeated endlessly by religious fanatics. Rome
fell because of a number of factors. Gibbon saw a pattern emerge with
the rise of Christianity and the fall of Rome as the oppressed slave
class was given new hope for a better hereafter. Later work has
emphasized the impact of Invasions and epidemics as well as the rise
of other economic centers outside the shrinking empire.
Scientific progress was set back 1000 years in the West largely
because of the agendas of Christian culture. Books were burned and
'The World' was taught to be a horrible place unworthy of grappling
with in order to make progress in favor of contemplation of a heavenly
afterlife. What started out as a liberationg influence for a huge
slave class turned into largely a repressive one, with the 'Dark Ages'
resulting. Only a few monks could read at all, and ancient texts faded
from circulation in favor of Bibles and religious commentary.

> -snip- and what woman in her right
mind cannot see the handwriting on the wall with abortion and gay
marriage? Are we better off? Happier? Healthier? Look up some
statistics and you'll see the clear answer to all these is, No.

Be careful about quoting statistics, you might be called upon to cite
your references. With choice comes the possibility of making mistakes,
but living in rigid Puritanical societies is worse.

> If I were to exercise "my" sexuality outside of marriage
and outside of the act of creation of new life, I would affect
society deeply even if slowly. It's just not "mine." And it's
not "yours," either. That is not to say either one of us won't be
lonely sometimes. It's something we can bear, though.

I am appalled that many people take a pathalogical interest in
condemning how other consenting adults enjoy themselves. They heap the
ills of society upon them, label them as the cause, and enjoy
persecuting them. The last century reeks of these kinds of tragic
crusades, and history stands in mute testimony to all this for those
who take the trouble to learn.
Sex is not just to make babies, it is for couple bonding, and it is
for pleasure! No need to be ashamed of this, and no need to condemn
others for deciding to fall short of the largest amount of breeding
possible! I came of age in the late 60's in a time of great personal
liberation, the beginning of the days when you can live together
without being married, and I can't say I'm sorry for that!
That era was the 'Golden Age' of manned exploration of outer space by
the 'establishment' as well as the mass 'trips' to 'inner' space by
millions of the counterculture. LSD brought as much change as the
sight of the Earth in space, and the publishers of the Whole Earth
Catalog, outlets for both 'space' related aspects, said it all with
the words to the effect of 'We are as Gods and we might as well get
good at it'.
We have the brains to look ahead and oversee our lives in order to
decide for ourselves what we want to do. The rise of the affluent
societies with enough leisure time to contemplate assuming the role of
Gods of our own Destiny is due to the increasing choices we have
worked hard to provide individuals.

> And I support you, I really do, as a gay person, your right to
otherwise dress and act however you feel moved, without
discrimination against you. And I speak up when I hear it. That
doesn't mean I have to rent a house to you and your lover, or
support your adopting kids. Serve kids in other ways.
Give up sex. Sublimate, for the sake of the whole. It worked for
centuries.

If you would discriminate against an unmarried couple based on
religion, I consider that a kind of low level hate crime. it reminds
me of the days when people of African ancestry were routinely denied
housing, jobs and such. Religion was also used to justify a lot of
this. You are writing like someone I would like to see gather up those
who believe that way and ship out in your own colony, however in the
mean time I suspect you would find large parts of Rural Utah to your
liking based on your expressed sentiments.
I would like to think that Human society is getting more enlightened
and allowing more choices, however with governments getting better at
oppressing the social scapegoats of the day I fear the best chances
free Humanity may have is to create a new society in space
specifically taylored to innovation and personal freeedom.

Don Davis

>(for example, men's wages have fallen for decades in relation to
women's wages--that's how the great leaps forward in women's wages
have been possible, and they are in fact a mirage--and this should stop.

What should stop...Women wanting careers? are you comfortable with
the time of women being valued less than men in the workplace? Should
not someone doing the same job in the same enviornment be paid a
similar amount?

Don

Thank you very much for this gracious reply. I admit to ranting and
admire your patience as well as your liberality in matters of free
speech.

The thing is, as Flannery O'Connor said about her grotesque
characters, to the deaf you shout and for the blind you must draw
large figures. Perhaps I was too loud, too large.

But to me it seems so central and it is truly vexing to hear well
reasoned arguments about the relationship between thrust and
resistance in lift off, and thoughtless ones about a solution to the
equally real problem of underpopulation that not only will face us
in space, but faces us now in the European populations, whose growth
rate is below zero. Their women have stopped having kids. They have
stopped commiting themselves to motherhood. Do you think just
cutting off their birth control will make them into mothers, a
highly developed social behavior?

This is already beginning to affect social understructures that are
as important as oxygen to a colony, for all those altruistic
behaviors which have enabled us to build civilizations greater than
the animals' are connected to the first fundamentally un-animal
behavior of man, a woman's willingness to put the life of her child
above her own life. This is a decision, not instinctual, fragile,
and essential to complex societies. Many other behaviors are modeled
on it, learned from it, that add up to the complicated heroism of
day to day life, where we avoid ripping each other off even though
we would personally benefit, try not to lie, take care of our crnaky
old parents, where we go into burning buildings to save human lives,
where someone can be counted on to give their life for others.

And wifehood--that's certainly going too. In place of a person who
voluntarily puts the happiness of another at least equal to her own,
we get the angry, 'I got mine,screw you' modern woman (that African
Aamerican writer director Tim Alexander recently told off in his
film clip Tired Black Man). We get Sabrina Harmon, that ugly little
pseudo-man soldier torturing the helpless and grinning into the
camera, the new American Womanhood.

What man would brave space to protect that? (For that matter, what
man can play good soccer with that to come home to? I give you the
US team.)

And men need something to love, something larger than they are, to
do work that is larger than we are, which is what human civilization
is. So precious, so frail. Love is frail. Just as frail as some
biological connections. You think, oh, it'll take one more hit, and
then suddenly there are no trees. What will the world do when the
role that women have filled since there were men and women is gone?
Pregnancy was always tied to sex; now that's gone. Women always had
periods, a hormone spikiness that gave her special powers and sexual
desire; that will be gone very shortly, in spite of Terrier's
observation that it's anti-human and will extenguish itself--yes, it
is, yes it will, along with us.

You freely recognize the challenges we face technologically in
making the space colony, but you think that you can export the
social behaviors that are making earth unlivable without
consequence. You don't see the relationship between pornography and
the death of love, even though it's easy.

We don't need more laws, though. Just you and your buddies to
realize that love and the family really are the sexiest.

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:
>
> Wow. What a pointless bit of moralistic "do it my way or else"
> ranting. Makes me want to download porn. Gay porn. And I'm
straight.
>
> Now, of course you have the right to have your opinions, to state
your
> opinions, and to try to persuade others to hold the same opinions
you
> do. You have these rights whether or not I, or anybody else,
thinks
> that your opinions are worthwhile. Even if your ideas are not
> popular; even if they are.
>
> But so do I. And my opinion is that a bunch of guys swearing off
porn
> and a bunch of gals swearing of birth control pills isn't going to
get
> us into space any faster. Building better rockets or finding
> something better THAN rockets will get us into space faster. There
> are perfectly good reasons husbands and wives shouldn't cheat on
each
> other, and none of them have diddle-squat to do with space.
>
> You do know that zero-G porn has been made already?
>
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/uranus_experiment_000516.h
tml

It's clear that there will be massive differences of opinion on how a
space society ought to be.

When the Puritans came to America in the 1600's, they were looking to
set up their own religious society, but were eventually overwhelmed
by the number of other settlers less sympathetic to their views. I
imagine that any space settlement will have certain groups that feel
the need to impose their own view on the others in the settlement,
even if they use the democratic process to do so. If there are a
multitude of settlements, it would be easier for people to move to a
settlement compatible with their beliefs, but do we really think that
Earth lawmakers or other space settlements are going to sit by and
allow isolated settlements to follow their own moral paths? Would
Earth allow a space settlement where only Christians are allowed, or
a settlement where child sex is allowed? There is a line somewhere
between allowing others to do their own thing, and protecting the
rights of the oppressed. Who would have the right to tell an isolated
space settlement what they can and cannot do? If they are sovereign,
and they adopt heinous policies, who will police them?

Obviously at first the settlements will be heavily supported by and
dependent on Earth, so enforcement would be easy. But eventually it
will become less centralized. We have a very poor track record on
this planet dealing with diversity. I am worried that space
colonization may bring out the worst in some of us. There is no Utopia.

doug

On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Don Davis wrote:

Well Janet, if you aren't wanting to pass laws to MAKE women have
babies, to MAKE men give up porn (women too; lots of women like porn),
to MAKE women not take some no-bleed pill, to MAKE... you get the idea.

As long as you are just advocating changes in behavior, and not trying
to slap us porn-loving birth-controlling heathans with the force of
law, then I guess we don't really have a beef with each other. I
mean, we can talk, and tell each other "you're wrong!" or even "you're
wrong about this, but you're right about that," but I don't consider
you an enemy for advocating something, even something that I find silly.

Of course, a quick look around here will show that I'm very big on
women owning their own bodies, and on men owning theirs, for that
matter. The whole tiff on longevity was based on the question of
whether or not people should be able to decide for themselves how long
they should live. I disagree with Francis Fukuyama when he says that
such things are the provence of government, or of society at large.
How long I can live should be limited by my own choice only, though
currently it is also limited by the current low state of the art in
longevity tech. So it shouldn't be surprising that I feel that
whether or not women menstruate should be up to them. If you want to
bleed, then by all means bleed.

Zeno, baby, I am for one law, the recriminalization of abortion.
See, I agree with you, very fundamentally: my body is mine, your
body is yours, and that baby's body is his or hers. As soon as you
deny that last person's rights, you open the door to deny the first
two people's rights, too. And that's what's happened since we made
abortion legal and profitable.

And also there's something so unbalanced about how it is now: a guy
has no call, the woman has the whole call. How awful it is, you meet
this person who represents herself as uninterested in parenthood,
she's safe, she's on the pill, you have sex, and the next thing you
know you're a paying dad for the rest of your life without any
choice in the matter. It's unjust. Neither ONE of youse guys should
have a call about whether the new human being lives or dies. Murder
should be criminal except in self defense. Everybody who has sex
should do so knowing that if a human being is conceived, that human
being has as much right to life as anybody else. It should be the
default position that human life is sacred, without qualification--
not age (preborn and toothless or post-profitable and toothless),
not sex, not nationality, not income.

Could you work with me on that?

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:
>
> Well Janet, if you aren't wanting to pass laws to MAKE women have
> babies, to MAKE men give up porn (women too; lots of women like
porn),
> to MAKE women not take some no-bleed pill, to MAKE... you get the
idea.
>
> As long as you are just advocating changes in behavior, and not
trying
> to slap us porn-loving birth-controlling heathans with the force of
> law, then I guess we don't really have a beef with each other. I
> mean, we can talk, and tell each other "you're wrong!" or
even "you're
> wrong about this, but you're right about that," but I don't
consider
> you an enemy for advocating something, even something that I find
silly.
>
> Of course, a quick look around here will show that I'm very big on
> women owning their own bodies, and on men owning theirs, for that
> matter. The whole tiff on longevity was based on the question of
> whether or not people should be able to decide for themselves how
long
> they should live. I disagree with Francis Fukuyama when he says
that
> such things are the provence of government, or of society at
large.
> How long I can live should be limited by my own choice only, though
> currently it is also limited by the current low state of the art in
> longevity tech. So it shouldn't be surprising that I feel that
> whether or not women menstruate should be up to them. If you want
to

It would appear that having the guy depend on the female to take care of things is RISKY as all get out... remember the old "trust everyone but verify mantra"...but how does one verify at the moment of passion? How many of us have had "wishful thinking" at that moment of truth...

simple solution, guy does V section... then, regardless of what partner of opportunity claims or intentions are, the bases are covered. End of issue.

Can a guy afford to have a kid or is ready for the commitment? Then the cost and effort of a V section reversal is reasonable threshold investment of time and money.

If memory serves, they are 88% effective through micro surgery to reverse...a more than reasonable ratio... and I believe one could STILL harvest directly from testes for artificial insemination if the tubes get too messed up.

Again the alternative is a 100% chance of pregnancy at the wrong time of the month... instead of 100% chance of NO consequence regardless of the time of month...no "accidents" no memory loss, no mistakes, no wishful thinking because of the moment of passion

solves all the whos body is it questions... guy doesnt wanna have his little guys start something without his full consent, then he has the right to control his guys and when they get released... no matter HOW much the partner claims the right to her body, it doesnt come an issue. No action unless BOTH parties (the guy through a reversal) agree.

From: janet_baker76
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: satellite refueling and menstruation

Zeno, baby, I am for one law, the recriminalization of abortion.
See, I agree with you, very fundamentally: my body is mine, your
body is yours, and that baby's body is his or hers. As soon as you
deny that last person's rights, you open the door to deny the first
two people's rights, too. And that's what's happened since we made
abortion legal and profitable.

And also there's something so unbalanced about how it is now: a guy
has no call, the woman has the whole call. How awful it is, you meet
this person who represents herself as uninterested in parenthood,
she's safe, she's on the pill, you have sex, and the next thing you
know you're a paying dad for the rest of your life without any
choice in the matter. It's unjust. Neither ONE of youse guys should
have a call about whether the new human being lives or dies. Murder
should be criminal except in self defense. Everybody who has sex
should do so knowing that if a human being is conceived, that human
being has as much right to life as anybody else. It should be the
default position that human life is sacred, without qualification--
not age (preborn and toothless or post-profitable and toothless),
not sex, not nationality, not income.

Could you work with me on that?

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:
>
> Well Janet, if you aren't wanting to pass laws to MAKE women have
> babies, to MAKE men give up porn (women too; lots of women like
porn),
> to MAKE women not take some no-bleed pill, to MAKE... you get the
idea.
>
> As long as you are just advocating changes in behavior, and not
trying
> to slap us porn-loving birth-controlling heathans with the force of
> law, then I guess we don't really have a beef with each other. I
> mean, we can talk, and tell each other "you're wrong!" or
even "you're
> wrong about this, but you're right about that," but I don't
consider
> you an enemy for advocating something, even something that I find
silly.
>
> Of course, a quick look around here will show that I'm very big on
> women owning their own bodies, and on men owning theirs, for that
> matter. The whole tiff on longevity was based on the question of
> whether or not people should be able to decide for themselves how
long
> they should live. I disagree with Francis Fukuyama when he says
that
> such things are the provence of government, or of society at
large.
> How long I can live should be limited by my own choice only, though
> currently it is also limited by the current low state of the art in
> longevity tech. So it shouldn't be surprising that I feel that
> whether or not women menstruate should be up to them. If you want
to
> bleed, then by all means bleed.
>

Before all you guys go get this procedure, check out the literature
tht links vasectomies with heart problems.

You could always "save it" for that special girl and then you
wouldn't have to pay for the vasectomy OR the reversal.

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> It would appear that having the guy depend on the female to take
care of things is RISKY as all get out... remember the old "trust
everyone but verify mantra"...but how does one verify at the moment
of passion? How many of us have had "wishful thinking" at that
moment of truth...
>
> simple solution, guy does V section... then, regardless of what
partner of opportunity claims or intentions are, the bases are
covered. End of issue.
>
> Can a guy afford to have a kid or is ready for the commitment?
Then the cost and effort of a V section reversal is reasonable
threshold investment of time and money.
>
> If memory serves, they are 88% effective through micro surgery to
reverse...a more than reasonable ratio... and I believe one could
STILL harvest directly from testes for artificial insemination if
the tubes get too messed up.
>
> Again the alternative is a 100% chance of pregnancy at the wrong
time of the month... instead of 100% chance of NO consequence
regardless of the time of month...no "accidents" no memory loss, no
mistakes, no wishful thinking because of the moment of passion
>
> solves all the whos body is it questions... guy doesnt wanna have
his little guys start something without his full consent, then he
has the right to control his guys and when they get released... no
matter HOW much the partner claims the right to her body, it doesnt
come an issue. No action unless BOTH parties (the guy through a
reversal) agree.
>
> From: janet_baker76
> To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:37 PM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: satellite refueling and menstruation
>
> Zeno, baby, I am for one law, the recriminalization of abortion.
> See, I agree with you, very fundamentally: my body is mine, your
> body is yours, and that baby's body is his or hers. As soon as
you
> deny that last person's rights, you open the door to deny the
first
> two people's rights, too. And that's what's happened since we
made
> abortion legal and profitable.
>
> And also there's something so unbalanced about how it is now: a
guy
> has no call, the woman has the whole call. How awful it is, you
meet
> this person who represents herself as uninterested in
parenthood,
> she's safe, she's on the pill, you have sex, and the next thing
you
> know you're a paying dad for the rest of your life without any
> choice in the matter. It's unjust. Neither ONE of youse guys
should
> have a call about whether the new human being lives or dies.
Murder
> should be criminal except in self defense. Everybody who has sex
> should do so knowing that if a human being is conceived, that
human
> being has as much right to life as anybody else. It should be
the
> default position that human life is sacred, without
qualification--
> not age (preborn and toothless or post-profitable and
toothless),
> not sex, not nationality, not income.
>
> Could you work with me on that?
>
> Jan
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
> wrote:
> >
> > Well Janet, if you aren't wanting to pass laws to MAKE women
have
> > babies, to MAKE men give up porn (women too; lots of women
like
> porn),
> > to MAKE women not take some no-bleed pill, to MAKE... you get
the
> idea.
> >
> > As long as you are just advocating changes in behavior, and
not
> trying
> > to slap us porn-loving birth-controlling heathans with the
force of
> > law, then I guess we don't really have a beef with each other.
I
> > mean, we can talk, and tell each other "you're wrong!" or
> even "you're
> > wrong about this, but you're right about that," but I don't
> consider
> > you an enemy for advocating something, even something that I
find
> silly.
> >
> > Of course, a quick look around here will show that I'm very
big on
> > women owning their own bodies, and on men owning theirs, for
that
> > matter. The whole tiff on longevity was based on the question
of
> > whether or not people should be able to decide for themselves
how
> long
> > they should live. I disagree with Francis Fukuyama when he
says
> that
> > such things are the provence of government, or of society at
> large.
> > How long I can live should be limited by my own choice only,
though
> > currently it is also limited by the current low state of the
art in
> > longevity tech. So it shouldn't be surprising that I feel that
> > whether or not women menstruate should be up to them. If you
want

I rather check out the info linking up UN-prepared "fatherhood" with great destructive changes in lifestyle to BOTH parties, adding stresses and complications from "trying to make the best of things" and "making it work against the odds" and that's without considering also possible execution / body harm / castration by angry female family, ,,

Yup keep it in your pants SOUNDS great...but the Create-Life imperative sure has a way of getting it's way in spite of the best intentions, plans, oaths, promises, intellectualized talks, etc.... :-))

...and for the "gander",,,what are the links to higher health risks for females using various forms of contraceptives, pregnancy complications and unwanted babies? Family and social repercussions for out of wedlock "condition"? Expenses, straining of resources that could be used for other health issues that lead to loss of life?

:-))

From: janet_baker76
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:32 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: satellite refueling and menstruation

Before all you guys go get this procedure, check out the literature
tht links vasectomies with heart problems.

You could always "save it" for that special girl and then you
wouldn't have to pay for the vasectomy OR the reversal.

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> It would appear that having the guy depend on the female to take
care of things is RISKY as all get out... remember the old "trust
everyone but verify mantra"...but how does one verify at the moment
of passion? How many of us have had "wishful thinking" at that
moment of truth...
>
> simple solution, guy does V section... then, regardless of what
partner of opportunity claims or intentions are, the bases are
covered. End of issue.
>
> Can a guy afford to have a kid or is ready for the commitment?
Then the cost and effort of a V section reversal is reasonable
threshold investment of time and money.
>
> If memory serves, they are 88% effective through micro surgery to
reverse...a more than reasonable ratio... and I believe one could
STILL harvest directly from testes for artificial insemination if
the tubes get too messed up.
>
> Again the alternative is a 100% chance of pregnancy at the wrong
time of the month... instead of 100% chance of NO consequence
regardless of the time of month...no "accidents" no memory loss, no
mistakes, no wishful thinking because of the moment of passion
>
> solves all the whos body is it questions... guy doesnt wanna have
his little guys start something without his full consent, then he
has the right to control his guys and when they get released... no
matter HOW much the partner claims the right to her body, it doesnt
come an issue. No action unless BOTH parties (the guy through a
reversal) agree.
>
> From: janet_baker76
> To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:37 PM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: satellite refueling and menstruation
>
> Zeno, baby, I am for one law, the recriminalization of abortion.
> See, I agree with you, very fundamentally: my body is mine, your
> body is yours, and that baby's body is his or hers. As soon as
you
> deny that last person's rights, you open the door to deny the
first
> two people's rights, too. And that's what's happened since we
made
> abortion legal and profitable.
>
> And also there's something so unbalanced about how it is now: a
guy
> has no call, the woman has the whole call. How awful it is, you
meet
> this person who represents herself as uninterested in
parenthood,
> she's safe, she's on the pill, you have sex, and the next thing
you
> know you're a paying dad for the rest of your life without any
> choice in the matter. It's unjust. Neither ONE of youse guys
should
> have a call about whether the new human being lives or dies.
Murder
> should be criminal except in self defense. Everybody who has sex
> should do so knowing that if a human being is conceived, that
human
> being has as much right to life as anybody else. It should be
the
> default position that human life is sacred, without
qualification--
> not age (preborn and toothless or post-profitable and
toothless),
> not sex, not nationality, not income.
>
> Could you work with me on that?
>
> Jan
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
> wrote:
> >
> > Well Janet, if you aren't wanting to pass laws to MAKE women
have
> > babies, to MAKE men give up porn (women too; lots of women
like
> porn),
> > to MAKE women not take some no-bleed pill, to MAKE... you get
the
> idea.
> >
> > As long as you are just advocating changes in behavior, and
not
> trying
> > to slap us porn-loving birth-controlling heathans with the
force of
> > law, then I guess we don't really have a beef with each other.
I
> > mean, we can talk, and tell each other "you're wrong!" or
> even "you're
> > wrong about this, but you're right about that," but I don't
> consider
> > you an enemy for advocating something, even something that I
find
> silly.
> >
> > Of course, a quick look around here will show that I'm very
big on
> > women owning their own bodies, and on men owning theirs, for
that
> > matter. The whole tiff on longevity was based on the question
of
> > whether or not people should be able to decide for themselves
how
> long
> > they should live. I disagree with Francis Fukuyama when he
says
> that
> > such things are the provence of government, or of society at
> large.
> > How long I can live should be limited by my own choice only,
though
> > currently it is also limited by the current low state of the
art in
> > longevity tech. So it shouldn't be surprising that I feel that
> > whether or not women menstruate should be up to them. If you
want
> to
> > bleed, then by all means bleed.
> >
>

Well, we can agree on abortion or we can disagree on abortion, but I
do know this much: women who are not pregnant do not get abortions.
Women who are pregnant, and want to be, also do not get abortions
(although sometimes a woman who wants to be pregnant will discover
that she has a medical problem).

Modern contraception is pretty good. The Pill has a failure rate of
what? one and a half percent or so? This is one out of every
seventy-five(?). I might easily believe that one or two percent of
women would choose to go ahead and have the baby. Throw in condoms,
which have a failure rate of fifteen percent. This is one out of, um,
sixty? So the chance that both Pill and condom would fail AT THE SAME
TIME would be one out of 4,500.

I do indeed believe that if men who didn't want to be fathers would
use condoms, and women who didn't want to be mothers took the Pill,
well, there wouldn't be much abortion. And yet all the national
Pro-Life organizations are against greater availability of
contraception. If they really wanted to reduce the number of
abortions, they would be millitantly FOR the ONLY THING which really
does reduce abortion: not being pregnant unless you want to be.

How about banning abortion for those who don't use contraception,
excepting for medical reasons? That would mean abortions would only
happen in those rare cases where the woman can't endure a pregnancy
and not be injured or killed by it, and in those even rarer cases when
condom and Pill fail at the same time.

Not saying that I would vote for this, but it would make more sense
that what anti-abortion groups are doing. That doesn't mean you,
Janet dear, it means the national organizations.

Ah, but how could you prove that the man did or did not use a condom?
The woman, you could give her a blood test or something. And what
happens when a male Pill is invented? There are several in testing.

Xenophile wrote:

**The whole tiff on longevity was based on the question of
whether or not people should be able to decide for themselves how long
they should live. I disagree with Francis Fukuyama when he says that
such things are the provence of government, or of society at large.
How long I can live should be limited by my own choice only, though
currently it is also limited by the current low state of the art in
longevity tech. So it shouldn't be surprising that I feel that
whether or not women menstruate should be up to them. If you want to
bleed, then by all means bleed.**

Free will is not as free as we think, humans are social by nature, they have a natural tendency to idolize people they admire; children naturally pick up the mores of the society in which they live. In our current 'globalize by force' and 'open world markets by force' society, even what semblance of freedom existed earlier does not exist now. If what you are saying is correct then we must also stop influencing others, and be sensitive to other societies whose needs may be different. But this is rarely the case. Normally people who think that their way of life is superior also seem to have the very human need to convert others to their own point of view.

On the subject of excessive porn, which Janet seems to be against, it is an area which needs research badly. (My own feeling is the age in which girls are allowed to act in porn should be changed to 25, from the current 18) But who is going to do the research? The impression I am getting is, research is done only on subjects which will make someone a lot of money.

I remember reading in a newspapers about six months back that children below the age of three should not view T.V. Made sense to me. After all if you carry a child in you arms and point out the blue of the sky, make the child feel a leaf from a plant or hold a flower in her hand, she is going to get a much better feel of the real world. Imagine my surprise when I read in the same paper a few months later that there is no harm in children below the age of three watching T.V. You can't beat the power of making money : - ) ( The world as it exists. But then maybe we can change the paradigm which defines success in our world)

Selvaraj

Been reading all these posts about abortion and such, wondering what
it has to do with space settlement, but on a deep level, morality is
a crucial topic for us.

If it is a free and open settlement, it is inevitable that there will
be abortionists and antiabortionists on board. There will be gays and
antigays. There will be smokers and antismokers, and so on. Just like
here, they will have to come together and find a solution that they
can live with without resorting to violence. The problem is, in space
it will be much more important to have a working agreement because
cooperation will be very important in space. Survival will be more
tenuous than on Earth and deep divisions will have a greater impact
on the operation of the settlement. Energy will need to be spent on
survival rather than arguing points of morality when you can't change
the other person's mind anyway.

Also in space, because you'll have a smaller statistical sample
population in each settlement (in the thousands instead of millions)
it will be easier for one side to gain control and force the other
side to comply. There is a real possibility then that transfer of
power will be by violence.

Even if a settlement is peopled only by like-minded individuals who
all agree, it is inevitable that in future generations dissenters
will arise. How far will the settlement go to force their children to
bend to their will. They really won't be able to kick their children
off the colony if they refuse to obey the laws. These will not be
children of the Earth, they have no other home.

doug

Hi

>
> Been reading all these posts about abortion and such, wondering
>what
> it has to do with space settlement, but on a deep level, morality
>is
> a crucial topic for us.
>
> If it is a free and open settlement, it is inevitable that there
>will
> be abortionists and antiabortionists on board.

Not necesarily. Abortion is not a matter of fact. Is not a moral
issue either. It is just bad tech. In ancient times people used to
kill children as a measure of population control. That was very
common and accepted by all people, even in religious ceremonies.
They burn alive the kids they don't wanted to the gods.

Today nobody accepts the murder of children anymore, but do accept
abortion, which is a variant of the same thing.

In the future people will have the means to stop conception at will
with a 100% certainty, so abortion won't be needed. Is even posible
people will be sterile and all the reproduction would be artificial,
including mecanical wombs (they are in study already).

In the future, abortion will be considered a crime as gross as the
murder of children.

>There will be gays and
> antigays.

Perhaps in space will live in space settlements way appart. Or
perhaps genetic engineering will find the cure. Who knows?

Regards,

Omar

I doubt that model will happen.

What I believe will happen is that if some of these deviants do come
up into the colonies, as colonies grow they will move to habitats
that will accept them but their numbers will decline simply by
process of nature while those who follow the life affirming path will
literally go forth and multiply in great numbers. That is the process
that has repeated in history and will undoubtedly repeat. Science can
take man only so far but in the end nature prevales.

I see the movement into space as a natural place to experiment and
develope.

Societies will develope without the heavy government hand of social
engineering. Nature and the natural process will be the ultimate
refaree just as it was starting four hundred years ago when Europeans
started moving to North America.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Douglas May wrote:
>
> Been reading all these posts about abortion and such, wondering
what
> it has to do with space settlement, but on a deep level, morality
is
> a crucial topic for us.
>
> If it is a free and open settlement, it is inevitable that there
will
> be abortionists and antiabortionists on board. There will be gays
and
> antigays. There will be smokers and antismokers, and so on. Just
like
> here, they will have to come together and find a solution that
they
> can live with without resorting to violence. The problem is, in
space
> it will be much more important to have a working agreement because
> cooperation will be very important in space. Survival will be more
> tenuous than on Earth and deep divisions will have a greater
impact
> on the operation of the settlement. Energy will need to be spent
on
> survival rather than arguing points of morality when you can't
change
> the other person's mind anyway.
>
> Also in space, because you'll have a smaller statistical sample
> population in each settlement (in the thousands instead of
millions)
> it will be easier for one side to gain control and force the other
> side to comply. There is a real possibility then that transfer of
> power will be by violence.
>
> Even if a settlement is peopled only by like-minded individuals
who
> all agree, it is inevitable that in future generations dissenters
> will arise. How far will the settlement go to force their children
to
> bend to their will. They really won't be able to kick their
children

--- In spacesettlers, sraj wrote:

> Free will is not as free as we think, humans are social by nature,
> they have a natural tendency to idolize people they admire; children
> naturally pick up the mores of the society in which they live. In

Yes. Freedom is always limited by what choices are available. I can
not, currently, choose to live to be 250 years old. I can choose to
not smoke, or to cut down on saturated fats.

> our current 'globalize by force' and 'open world markets by force'
> society, even what semblance of freedom existed earlier does not
> exist now. If what you are saying is correct then we must also stop
> influencing others, and be sensitive to other societies whose needs
> may be different. But this is rarely the case. Normally people who
> think that their way of life is superior also seem to have the very
> human need to convert others to their own point of view.

I'm very much against converting on the point of a sword. The
convertees seldom appreciate it.

> On the subject of excessive porn, which Janet seems to be against,
> it is an area which needs research badly.

I volunteer!

> (My own feeling is the age in which girls are allowed to act in porn
> should be changed to 25, from the current 18)

Just girls?
I think it should be pegged to the age of consent. If you are "old
enough" to have sex at 16, why are you not "old enough" to have sex
while a camera is rolling for another two years (as it is now) or nine
years (your plan)?

> But who is going to do the research?

I volunteer!

> The impression I am getting is, research is done only on subjects
> which will make someone a lot of money.

I garner a lot of votes.

> I remember reading in a newspapers about six months back that
> children below the age of three should not view T.V. Made sense to
> me. After all if you carry a child in you arms and point out the
> blue of the sky, make the child feel a leaf from a plant or hold a
> flower in her hand, she is going to get a much better feel of the
> real world.

First off, if you take the kid outside you don't have to MAKE her
touch a leaf or hold a flower. What you have to MAKE the child do is
not to eat the leaf or grab the turantula. Kids love to experience
the world.

Secondly, I don't see any reason that the kid can't go outside with
Mommy and Daddy to look at the sky, touch the leaf, hold the flower
and be warned away from the turantula AND watch a little _Sesame
Street_ when she's not outside.

> Imagine my surprise when I read in the same paper a few months later
> that there is no harm in children below the age of three watching
> T.V.

Because nobody really knows. There is a desire on the part of
intelligentsia to believe that television is EVILEVILEVIL!!! but they
really don't know.

> You can't beat the power of making money : - ) ( The world as it
> exists. But then maybe we can change the paradigm which defines
> success in our world)

That's not going to be easy, but it might be a good goal to aim for.
Perhaps making sure that everybody has enough would help.

And now we're back to space. :)

LARRY KING: Is money important?
HUGH HEFNER: Not anymore.

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

> Hi

Hi.

> Not necesarily. Abortion is not a matter of fact. Is not a moral
> issue either. It is just bad tech. In ancient times people used to
> kill children as a measure of population control. That was very
> common and accepted by all people, even in religious ceremonies.
> They burn alive the kids they don't wanted to the gods.

This is true. Just like bleeding the sike wasn't so much a moral
issue as it was bad tech. Bad in this case meaning ineffectual,
needing improvement; not bad as in evil or wrong.

> Today nobody accepts the murder of children anymore, but do accept
> abortion, which is a variant of the same thing.

Yes, but...

> In the future people will have the means to stop conception at will
> with a 100% certainty, so abortion won't be needed.

We have already reached a level of contraceptive tech such that, if
that were all there was to it, abortion would be exceedingly rare.
The problem is that people are not using the available tech. In such
a case, it wouldn't matter if BC were 100% effective, as it would only
be as effective as those who use it.

> Is even posible people will be sterile and all the reproduction
> would be artificial, including mecanical wombs (they are in study
> already).

Fine with me.

> In the future, abortion will be considered a crime as gross as the
> murder of children.

Some consider it so already, but also oppose the only thing which has
been shown to reduce this thing they claim is so horrible.

>> There will be gays and antigays.

Antigay is already becoming unfashionable, which of course makes the
remaining antigays more strident. So eventually you get a tiny
minority which shrieks a lot.

> Perhaps in space will live in space settlements way appart.

I believe that there will be a lot of that. There will probably be
White Only habitats which insist on remaining an AU or two away from
the Black Only habitats, and many multiple AU's away from "race
mixing" habitats.

> Or perhaps genetic engineering will find the cure. Who knows?

In which case some people will want to genegeneer bisexuality in order
to expand possibilities. Gay people, for the most part, don't want to
be cured. But again, it would be nice if they had the option, as long
as it isn't forced on them. X-Men III.

It's been said multiple times now that if someone doesn't like their
colony, they can just pack up and leave. I'm hearing a lot of this in
America today ("If you don't like it, LEAVE!") But people certainly
don't want someone else to tell them that they have no other choice
but to leave the only home they've ever had. The first few decades of
space settlement will likely be strictly controlled by Earth
governments, and many will likely still be under the suzerainty of
Earth for sometime. But after some incalculable amount of time,
settlements will move further out and become more isolated. It is
precisely this isolation which will allow radical governments to
develop. Leaving one isolated colony for another may not be so easy,
especially for an outcast with little money. Also, border control on
a space station would be a pretty simple matter. Sort of a billion
mile thick Berlin wall. Escape would be difficult. Additionally, many
stations will not want to accept refugees from wacko colonies, since
they will already have their own population pressures. Being much
smaller than Earth countries, they will not be able to easily absorb
homeless/jobless people. Earth will probably accept refugees, but
societies living months/years away will be unable to send them.

It seems that due to distance we will have little choice but to
ignore totalitarianism and human rights abuses on far flung
settlements. I only hope that by doing so, we are not creating a
cancer that comes back to haunt us in a thousand years.

doug

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
wrote:
>
> Zeno, baby, I am for one law, the recriminalization of abortion.
>...
> Murder should be criminal except in self defense. Everybody who
has sex should do so knowing that if a human being is conceived,
that human being has as much right to life as anybody else. It
should be the default position that human life is sacred, without
qualification-- not age (preborn and toothless or post-profitable
and toothless), not sex, not nationality, not income.
>
> Could you work with me on that?
>
> Jan <

Jan,
the only problem I have with the "life is sacred" argument is
that life is often considered sacred when a private or public
individual chooses to end a pregnancy voluntarily, but it is not
even noticed (perhaps because it is out of sight) when a life is
lost in agony. I speak of the approximately 29,000 children who die
each day of hunger and hunger-related issues in the euphemistically-
termed 'developing countries'. That's one child dying every 3
seconds, I remind myself.
As I understand, many countries in the Third World which do not
have the arable land, the rainfall, or the economy to support their
populations have a frustratingly positive attitude toward having
large families, often religiously based. This is encouraged, of
course, by the foreign aid policy of every (U.S.) Republican
administration for years, I know as an otherwise proud citizen. If
the allegedly 'developed countries' are going to propogate this
propogation, how can they ignore (or be so ineffective in assisting
with) the problems they have encouraged?

Mark

earlier, wrote:

> ... a solution to the equally real problem of underpopulation that
not only will face us in space, but faces us now in the European
populations, whose growth rate is below zero. Their women have
stopped having kids. They have stopped commiting themselves to
motherhood. Do you think just cutting off their birth control will
make them into mothers, a highly developed social behavior? <

Jan,
Though I've heard the tales of woe about The End of Europe, I
can't see it emptying itself just because the number dying or
leaving exceeds the number born or arriving. Below zero growth
doesn't mean all mothers 'have stopped having kids', it just means
that the number of folks dropping babies is less than the number of
folks just dropping.
I can see that the EU may be facing a similar challenge as the
U.S. of economic transformation as both their demographics shift,
but I don't appreciate the fatalistic slant of the media. On a
finite body such as Earth, you can't expect to live in growth mode
forever, so the shift to a lower birth rate makes sense as a
population and its society matures in this cramped environment.
How fortunate that we have (O'Neill said) about 3000 Earth
surfaces to build with, floating around our solar system.
Perhaps we should just encourage those who wish to have large
families to head into space, and let the 'climax species'-thinkers,
the no-growthers, stay and tend the farm back on earth.

Mark

>
> Jan,
> the only problem I have with the "life is sacred" argument is
> that life is often considered sacred when a private or public
> individual chooses to end a pregnancy voluntarily, but it is not
> even noticed (perhaps because it is out of sight) when a life is
> lost in agony.

Mark,

One crime is not a excuse to commit another crime.

The problem is where you put the limit. If life is not sacred then
you start with fetus, follow with sick people, kill criminals, then
the senior citizens that produce nothing, perhaps the Jews, the
Blacks, the gays, the feminists, the mexicans, the prostitutes, the
communist, the New York fans, the rodeo cowboys, the bird watchers
or any other would follow.

Eugenics at its best.

It is very easy to start to kill people. The problem is where it all
ends.

>I speak of the approximately 29,000 children who die
> each day of hunger and hunger-related issues in the
>euphemistically-

Is very different to ignore the suffering of far away people that
kill a life that is related with us by blood. The first is
inconcience, the second is murder, or perhaps only the choice of
having fun, having confort, avoiding responsabilities.

> termed 'developing countries'. That's one child dying every 3
> seconds, I remind myself.

What would be better? That those kids end aborted like in
the 'advanced countries', where millions of fetus end up in the
garbage cans for the glory of "choice"?

Yes 'advanced' countries' kids don't suffer hunger, they are killed
before they have the chance of suffering. The ones that survive live
well, of course. There are so few of them that 'advanced countries'
are plenty of resources to feed them.

> As I understand, many countries in the Third World which do not
> have the arable land, the rainfall, or the economy to support
>their
> populations have a frustratingly positive attitude toward having
> large families, often religiously based.

Yes. Poor countries are so primitive!! Actually, the main problem is
in Africa. If you teach them abortion techniques, perhaps their
problems would stop right now.

Besides, start a brain washing campain explaining the importance of
saving the habitat for the green frog. Teach them parental
responsability and nihilism 101. And religion is not problem. Allow
then to have TV sets where they could watch American media and very
soon they will reprogram themselves, forget religion, and start to
think like Americans do.

With gay parades included.

Yes, forget alphabet campains, give them TV sets !!!!

Yes, and a little bit of American porn would help quite a lot to
desintigrate African backwards way of thinking. Yes, an American
porn actress influences minds better than a thousand teachers. For
French speaking countries French porn stars are not bad either. Yes
France, that 'advanced country' is the capital of culture, and also
of the oldest profession :)

Omar

>But after some incalculable amount of time,
>settlements will move further out and become more isolated.

Why? What's the advantage of that? I would think that clusters of habs
would arise, because the cost of shipping raw materials, finished goods,
etc. will be lower the closer your trading partners are. There would seem
to be safety reasons as well--if rebels blow a crack in your hab's shell,
you will be more likely to be able to safely evacuate everybody if you have
undamaged habs nearby to shuttle people to. Sure there may be a "Ceres
Cluster", a "Saturn Cluster," a "Mars Cluster," and an "Earth Cluster." But
the commercial and safety reasons for building these fleets of
commercially-related habs in clustes seem to far outweigh the psychological
benefits of isolation (if any). And besides, the obvious solution to
population limits on habs, even those which choose to move far from the rest
of humanity, will be to build a second hab close by. So what if it takes 50
years? You know you'll need it eventually, so you would choose to start as
soon as resources become available.

BradW