Well, list, I enjoyed the Satellite Refueling and Menstruation thread.
It took some interesting turns from the initial statement that a need
for population growth would be one consequence of the first space
colony, and the thread explored what it would take to get women to
want to have babies again, as women go further down the road to
renouncing their femininity.
no part of fatherhood, either. They were most emphatic. So we got a
bunch of boys and girls who would rather not--reproduce, menstruate,
change a diaper, wipe a snotty little nose, pay for college, grow old
together.
The family is a tough little package, and those cultures which foster
the family over the commune have proved to be resilient. Vernor Vinge
in Darkness of the Deep proposed that space would be conquored by
family dynasties operating in an economic system of young, expanding
capitalism where the concept of "return business" is the unifying
secular morality, and like enough to the golden rule to work just
fine. (Free trade among equals is cheaper than enslavement.)
Let's say Vinge and others are right and the family is the unit that
will carry humankind to the stars. I wonder what it will take to get
boys and girls together again in the baby-making business. I wonder if
we're too far down the road already. If so, you can forget the space
colony. All the tech talk is just jerking off, because neither the
government nor business will be able to take over reproduction from
living, breathing men and women, in spite of of those test tube uterus
fantasies.
Jan
Hi Janet,
Without responsabily of both men a women there is not family. Men
must assume the responsability. If they want the process of making
kids, they have also to assume the responsabily to allow them to
live and to grow.
Without children there are not families. Without responsable and
forgiving grand-parents, that take care of those "non-wanted" kids
of their teen girls, a large part of the population dissapears.
Governments won't boost population. Governments only want taxes to
be paid so they have money to mantain the politicians, and if a
population refuse to reproduce, governments just import people to
replace it.
Only families can maintain alive a people. And only societies with
strong family values survive in the long term, because only those
produce new generations.
Tech can help to produce kids, but without families where those kids
will grow? Without parents willing to have kids not even "artificial
wombs", or other high tech gear, will help much.
Families will never be "out of fashion". Romans tried once and the
whole Empire falled.
Please think about it. The core of society is not the government,
the heritage or the tradition. The core is the family. No replace
exist for it.
Omar,
An "old fashionated" South American
> The family is a tough little package, and those cultures which
foster
> the family over the commune have proved to be resilient. Vernor
Vinge
> in Darkness of the Deep proposed that space would be conquored by
> family dynasties operating in an economic system of young,
expanding
> capitalism where the concept of "return business" is the unifying
> secular morality, and like enough to the golden rule to work just
> fine. (Free trade among equals is cheaper than enslavement.)
>
> Let's say Vinge and others are right and the family is the unit
that
> will carry humankind to the stars. I wonder what it will take to
get
> boys and girls together again in the baby-making business. I
wonder if
> we're too far down the road already. If so, you can forget the
space
> colony. All the tech talk is just jerking off, because neither the
> government nor business will be able to take over reproduction
from
> living, breathing men and women, in spite of of those test tube
uterus
Certainly trends as far as Europe and some parts of the US hint that
that gloomy forcaste is likely but not all parts of the US are in
decline. And that this conversation is taking place shows there is Hope.
the family as the basic social unit has only succeeded in elininating
itself from history.
I was going to skip wading in on this thread until I had made sure that I had
read all of the post. But I am going to wade in here. I agree with Janet and
Omar.
As a person who has fathered 4 and raised an additional 13, whom my wife's
and I rescued from the garbage cans and gutters of life and as the CEO of 1000
Planets, Inc., have decided that we will not allow anyone but male -- female
pairs to apply for the positions any where in space where we will go. As
settlers in an orbital or planetary habitat controlled or sponsored by 1000 Planets
they must agree to produce 3 children, the natural way and raise them
(conditions permitting).
Don't like the way I think: go elsewhere.
I may not be "old fashioned" but I am a realistic expansionist and know that
women are fun and families are important.
1000Planets, Inc.
Building a Road to the Stars.
A Libertarian Candidate for Florida Governor 2006
203 W. Magnolia Street
Leesburg, Florida 34748
Phone 352 787 5550
Email: JWSmith42000@...
ceo@...
oevega@... writes:
> From: jwsmith42000@...
> they must agree to produce 3 children, the natural
> way and raise them (conditions permitting).
spoken like a man who's forgotten his own 5th goal. What happens to
individuality when you turn half your workforce into baby factories? Social
engineering tends to fail in a generation anyway. What happens in twenty
years time when the new colonists don't automatically make the same
decisions that their parents did?
John
In a message dated 6/19/2006 10:03:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dante_feditech@... writes:
> spoken like a man who's forgotten his own 5th goal. What happens to
> individuality when you turn half your workforce into baby factories? Social
> engineering tends to fail in a generation anyway. What happens in twenty
> years time when the new colonists don't automatically make the same
> decisions that their parents did?
>
> John
>
No, I have never given birth but I was there when all of my children were
born. I had 4 wives and 4 children. None of my wife's were in labor for more than
90 minutes and none of them suffered greatly at any time during their
pregnancies.
I really do not think that you want to down this road with me. You will your
self look foolish.
John Wayne
On 6/19/06, terrierkeeper wrote:
(...)
> Certainly other than the Spartans every system that tried to eliminate
> the family as the basic social unit has only succeeded in elininating
> itself from history.
(...)
that the existence of the Spartan way of life was not particularly
long. Tradition attributes do Lycurgus, which supposedly lived around
650 BC, the creation of the Spartan system, but in fact there are no
written records that serve as proof for that - for the very Spartan
laws were against written records. (How typical.) So what is known for
sure comes from the interaction of Sparta with other city-states, and
according to that Sparta was a prominent city following the Spartan
way of life only from 450 to 350 BC, approximately. A century or so is
not a very impressive mark. I would say that Sparta was just the
equivalent of Communism in Ancient Greece: something that seemed
terrifying and invincible for a time, but then collapsed due to its
own complete disconnection with human nature.
--- In spacesettlers, "janet_baker76" wrote:
> thread.
Which, I note with a smile, never said a blasted word about satellite
refueling.
> It took some interesting turns from the initial statement that a
> need for population growth would be one consequence of the first
> space colony, and the thread explored what it would take to get
> women to want to have babies again, as women go further down the
> road to renouncing their femininity.
Femininity is coming back into style. Frilly dresses and all.
Google on "goth loli".
> But some of the later posts revealed that many men on this list
> want no part of fatherhood, either. They were most emphatic.
Really? I seem to have missed it altogether.
> So we got a bunch of boys and girls who would rather not--
> reproduce, menstruate, change a diaper, wipe a snotty little nose,
> pay for college, grow old together.
Where on this list did anybody say any of that? I expressed an
aversion to growing old (not to being together), but the rest? I
didn't even read anybody saying they didn't want to menstruate. Or
anything about changing diapers.
> The family is a tough little package, and those cultures which
> foster the family over the commune have proved to be resilient.
Communes are made up of families.
> Vernor Vinge in Darkness of the Deep proposed that space would be
> conquored by family dynasties operating in an economic system of
> young, expanding capitalism where the concept of "return business"
> is the unifying secular morality, and like enough to the golden
> rule to work just fine.
Edgar Rice Burroughs in Tarzan of the Apes proposed that an English
nobleman raised by apes would be physically and morally superior to
civilized man.
> (Free trade among equals is cheaper than enslavement.)
OK, I can buy that. And at a discount!
> Let's say Vinge and others are right and the family is the unit
> that will carry humankind to the stars.
OK. Let's say that. But why?
> I wonder what it will take to get boys and girls together again in
> the baby-making business.
A glance at teen pregnancy statistics suggest that they never got out
of that business. Calm down everybody. It isn't like NOBODY EVER
HAS BABIES.
> I wonder if we're too far down the road already.
See above.
> If so, you can forget the space colony. All the tech talk is just
> jerking off,
First off, a little jerking off never hurt anybody. Second, without
the tech, no amount of babies will get us out of the gravity well.
Rockets and tethers and electro... AH! AH! OH! electromagnetic
launchers get us out of the gravity well.
> because neither the government nor business will be able to take
> over reproduction from living, breathing men and women,
Well, there are some books written around that premise, too.
> in spite of of those test tube uterus fantasies.
So are you saying that somehow the uterus is so "special" that no
mere machine could do it? Ever? I believe that used to be said
about the heart.
Could any polititian in any country get elected saying "I'm against
families"? "families suck"? "there shouldn't be families"? "family
values are worthless"? "my policy is to get rid of the family as a
core institution of society"? Or anything even remotely like that?
Relax, people; the family isn't going anywhere.
--- In spacesettlers, jwsmith42000 wrote:
With pleasure. I don't want to live anywhere on- or off-planet where
the gub'mint, be it an elected body or the man with cash, exercises
that level of control over my life. Expect a lot of others to go
elsewhere also. A lot of qualified people who could help you build
the thing, not just noskill joes like me.
Your conclusions are baseless.
people up there and we don't want to launch everyone forever and building to
accommodate a growing population is always a pre-measured, predetermined
done deal.
Some spinning would help new mothers and early child development.
They'll be plenty of jobs available.
Space is near boundless and it'll take a long long time to run out of
resources.
Population control on earth is the challenge.
George
cygo.com
On 6/19/06, janet_baker76 wrote:
each generation is different that others. if a group in one decided
they dont want children, the generation that follows will be from the
ones that do. a lot of the reason many ppl dont want children is that
with the current situation it really does not make since havning a
lot of children. with a change of situation brought on by open
expansion, having children would be easier and would increase the
lifestyle instead of decreasing it.
wrote:
>
> Well, list, I enjoyed the Satellite Refueling and Menstruation
thread.
> It took some interesting turns from the initial statement that a
need
> for population growth would be one consequence of the first space
> colony, and the thread explored what it would take to get women to
> want to have babies again, as women go further down the road to
> renouncing their femininity.
>
> But some of the later posts revealed that many men on this list
want
> no part of fatherhood, either. They were most emphatic. So we got a
> bunch of boys and girls who would rather not--reproduce,
menstruate,
> change a diaper, wipe a snotty little nose, pay for college, grow
old
> together.
>
> The family is a tough little package, and those cultures which
foster
> the family over the commune have proved to be resilient. Vernor
Vinge
> in Darkness of the Deep proposed that space would be conquored by
> family dynasties operating in an economic system of young,
expanding
> capitalism where the concept of "return business" is the unifying
> secular morality, and like enough to the golden rule to work just
> fine. (Free trade among equals is cheaper than enslavement.)
>
> Let's say Vinge and others are right and the family is the unit
that
> will carry humankind to the stars. I wonder what it will take to
get
> boys and girls together again in the baby-making business. I wonder
if
> we're too far down the road already. If so, you can forget the
space
> colony. All the tech talk is just jerking off, because neither the
> government nor business will be able to take over reproduction from
> living, breathing men and women, in spite of of those test tube
uterus
the roman attempt may have failed but the native american version
thrieved. i dont know if it was all tribes that did so or only some,
but they beleived that it was the responsibility of the entire tribe
to raise the children. if a female had a child with out having the
desire to raise it, there were others that would aid in that. same
with with the father, if he did not take care of it, (while he was
being osterzised for it) others would take care of the child.
>
> Hi Janet,
>
> As an "old fashionated" Latin America I agree with you fully!
>
> Without responsabily of both men a women there is not family. Men
> must assume the responsability. If they want the process of making
> kids, they have also to assume the responsabily to allow them to
> live and to grow.
>
> Without children there are not families. Without responsable and
> forgiving grand-parents, that take care of those "non-wanted" kids
> of their teen girls, a large part of the population dissapears.
>
> Governments won't boost population. Governments only want taxes to
> be paid so they have money to mantain the politicians, and if a
> population refuse to reproduce, governments just import people to
> replace it.
>
> Only families can maintain alive a people. And only societies with
> strong family values survive in the long term, because only those
> produce new generations.
>
> Tech can help to produce kids, but without families where those
kids
> will grow? Without parents willing to have kids not
even "artificial
im sure there will be some places that would do this. others would
allow paired groupds of lesbians and gays, as longs as they
contributed to the familys.
second and following generations. you cant simply say that they have
to leave if they dont agree to have children.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, jwsmith42000@... wrote:
>
> I was going to skip wading in on this thread until I had made sure
that I had
> read all of the post. But I am going to wade in here. I agree with
Janet and
> Omar.
> As a person who has fathered 4 and raised an additional 13, whom my
wife's
> and I rescued from the garbage cans and gutters of life and as the
CEO of 1000
> Planets, Inc., have decided that we will not allow anyone but male -
- female
> pairs to apply for the positions any where in space where we will
go. As
> settlers in an orbital or planetary habitat controlled or sponsored
by 1000 Planets
> they must agree to produce 3 children, the natural way and raise
them
> (conditions permitting).
> Don't like the way I think: go elsewhere.
> I may not be "old fashioned" but I am a realistic expansionist and
know that
On 6/20/06, Robert wrote:
(...)
> the roman attempt may have failed but the native american version
> thrieved. i dont know if it was all tribes that did so or only some,
> but they beleived that it was the responsibility of the entire tribe
> to raise the children. if a female had a child with out having the
> desire to raise it, there were others that would aid in that. same
> with with the father, if he did not take care of it, (while he was
> being osterzised for it) others would take care of the child.
(...)
Brazilian, getting an example closer to me) village everyone was to
some degree relative to everyone. So it is more like a culture were
big extended families - mothers, grandmothers, fathers, grandfathers,
uncles, cousins - live close to each other and take care of each
other. Some modern cultures (for instance my own latin/Brazilian
culture) resemble that. And of course there is an obvious genetic
interest/evolutionary advantage involved in that way of living. So the
native American vision was rather an extension of the concept of
family than a negation of it...
On 6/20/06, Robert wrote:
(...)
> im sure there will be some places that would do this. others would
> allow paired groupds of lesbians and gays, as longs as they
> contributed to the familys.
(...)
homosexuality in many mammalian species is that homosexuality is an
indirect way of propagating genes. The gay individual will not
reproduce by itself/himself/herself, but will have spare resources to
help its/his/her nephews, brothers, sisters, etc, which will propagate
copies of the same genes anyway. It is something like (but less
extreme than) those packs of wolves were only the alpha couple
reproduce and all the other wolves just hunt for them, or those
communities of social underground rats were there is a "rat queen"
that is the only reproductive individual in the whole group.
If that is the case, though, strong repression of homosexuality as
seen in many contemporary societies may in fact be nullifying that
naturally evolved strategy.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Lucio de Souza Coelho"
wrote:
>
> On 6/20/06, Robert wrote:
> (...)
> > the roman attempt may have failed but the native american version
> > thrieved. i dont know if it was all tribes that did so or only
some,
> > but they beleived that it was the responsibility of the entire
tribe
> > to raise the children. if a female had a child with out having
the
> > desire to raise it, there were others that would aid in that.
same
> > with with the father, if he did not take care of it, (while he
was
> > being osterzised for it) others would take care of the child.
> (...)
>
> It should be noticed though that within a native American (or
native
> Brazilian, getting an example closer to me) village everyone was to
> some degree relative to everyone. So it is more like a culture were
> big extended families - mothers, grandmothers, fathers,
grandfathers,
> uncles, cousins - live close to each other and take care of each
> other. Some modern cultures (for instance my own latin/Brazilian
> culture) resemble that. And of course there is an obvious genetic
> interest/evolutionary advantage involved in that way of living. So
the
> native American vision was rather an extension of the concept of
> family than a negation of it...
>
Yes!
The small space communities will have a lot in common with the
ancient tribal style of living. If you have, let's say, a hundred
people living 1 million miles (or more) from anyone else, people
will have to colaborate like in an extended family. That's the
meaning of tribes. And I think this is the most "natural" way of
living for people, unlike modern societies where you pack ten
million people in one place and nobody know their neighbours.
By the way, Lucio, if you got information about the Native heritage
of modern Brazil, both in genes and culture, please let me know.
Regards,
Omar Vega
I would be very careful about using biology to justify behaviors. The
Eugenics movement has left quite a mark in history a very bad and
bloody one. Some people believe criminality is biologicly motivated.
I certainly do not believe in the 'Gay Gene' since experiments to
identify it have often failed to repeat successfully.
lasted some three centuries. What brought them down was their bizarr
wedding and marital pratctices which kept their birth rate down. That
and their propensity for weeding people out without bringing in new
blood. Their contest to identify all the best Helots for example.
They threw a party for the best Helot soldiers and farmers. At the
end of which they murdered each and every single one. Some six
thousand top quality individuals who might have made great Spartan
recruits. Excellent replacements to fill out their declining numbers
from all the battles and disasters they suffered. The great Lysander
who was Spartan by his father though his mother was a Helot is proof
of that.
Their system if Checks and Balances is the basis of our modern way of
government. Their system of Discipline though harsh is certainly a
good idea taken slightly diluted. Jerry Purnelle uses them as a model
in a series of his novels.
It will be one of many ideas worth studying when man moves into
Space. But I believe the Family Unit is still the best unit upon
which Society will stand. And man will embrace its return when the
great move comes.
On 6/20/06, terrierkeeper wrote:
(...)
> I would be very careful about using biology to justify behaviors. The
> Eugenics movement has left quite a mark in history a very bad and
> bloody one.
of biological roots of homosexuality is that conservative families in
the future may use knowledge obtained that way to abort children with
propensity to gay behavior. In short, Eugenics again. Indeed that
would be a puzzling situation for traditional conservatives: would
their disapproval of homosexuality be enough to win over their
disapproval of abortion?
(...)
> I certainly do not believe in the 'Gay Gene' since experiments to
> identify it have often failed to repeat successfully.
(...)
Well, I would say that the evidence is mounting and is being collected
independently by several teams around the world and in very different
lines of research. In fact, last I heard of that, the evidence was
that there are *several* of those genes in different chromosomes that
may indeed have evolved independently. See for instance
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060224_gay_genes.html
Of course the term "Gay gene" should be put between quote marks - as
you did - for the most likely biological construct is a complex of
genes producing some behavior. Nevertheless, the use of "gene for
this" and "gene for that" has its semantic utility in Biology.
--- In spacesettlers, "terrierkeeper" wrote:
> Society will stand. And man will embrace its return when the great
> move comes.
Embrace its return from WHERE? People still live in families.
Really, we are debating things based on some assumptions which seem
to be at odds with observed reality. These assumptions are
a) nobody has babies anymore, when clearly obstetricians are still in
business, and
b) the family no longer exists, when in fact mommy daddy the kids and
a dog (or cat) is still the most common arraingment.
I also find it interesting that many of us assume that robots are or
soon will be capable of mining an asteroid, processing the ore, and
building a habitat with minimal human intervention, but that
household chores with the owner less than five metres aways is just
too much for anything short of human-level AI (which is assumed to be
impossible in the next half-millinnium or more).
I don't mean to be a contrarianist, but really.
true
wrote:
>
> On 6/20/06, Robert wrote:
> (...)
> > the roman attempt may have failed but the native american version
> > thrieved. i dont know if it was all tribes that did so or only
some,
> > but they beleived that it was the responsibility of the entire
tribe
> > to raise the children. if a female had a child with out having
the
> > desire to raise it, there were others that would aid in that.
same
> > with with the father, if he did not take care of it, (while he
was
> > being osterzised for it) others would take care of the child.
> (...)
>
> It should be noticed though that within a native American (or native
> Brazilian, getting an example closer to me) village everyone was to
> some degree relative to everyone. So it is more like a culture were
> big extended families - mothers, grandmothers, fathers,
grandfathers,
> uncles, cousins - live close to each other and take care of each
> other. Some modern cultures (for instance my own latin/Brazilian
> culture) resemble that. And of course there is an obvious genetic
> interest/evolutionary advantage involved in that way of living. So
the
On 6/20/06, Omar E. Vega wrote:
(...)
> By the way, Lucio, if you got information about the Native heritage
> of modern Brazil, both in genes and culture, please let me know.
(...)
I think that the classic work about the cultural and racial mix of
Brazil is still "The Masters and the Slaves" (the awkward English
translation of the original title "Casa Grande e Senzala" ;-), from
Gilberto Freyre. Link for a translation in English at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520056655/sr=8-1/qid50825897/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9893086-6911902?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Link for a edition in the original Portuguese at a Brazilian
Amazon-equivalent:
http://www.livrariasaraiva.com.br/produto/produto.dll/detalhe?pro_id3861&ID8B80AC7D606140F010B0214
This book is over seventy years old but most of the reflections and
data there are still valid. However, many other studies were done
since then. For instance, in recent years some research groups have
been tracking DNA markers of the original races in the present heavily
mixed Brazilian population:
http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/index.php?s,3,907&aq=s (Link for
an article in Brazilian Portuguese. Since many of the written words
are quite similar to the equivalent ones in Spanish, though, I think
it will still be readable for you.) Unfortunately, as far as I know
there is no great book summarizing all those more recent studies - a
kind of modern equivalent of "Casa Grande e Senzala"...
then there is the insects with only one queen that repoduces all the
others for the next generation.
know (not many admittedly) want to have children. problem is that
society will not allow them to adapt much of the time. unless they
can find a partner of an opposite pairing, they will have little
chance of having those children, at least in america. i forsee a time
in the future that its an accepted lifestyle and arrangements will be
possible.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Lucio de Souza Coelho"
wrote:
>
> On 6/20/06, Robert wrote:
> (...)
> > im sure there will be some places that would do this. others would
> > allow paired groupds of lesbians and gays, as longs as they
> > contributed to the familys.
> (...)
>
> Indeed a recurring evolutionary explanation for the presence of
> homosexuality in many mammalian species is that homosexuality is an
> indirect way of propagating genes. The gay individual will not
> reproduce by itself/himself/herself, but will have spare resources
to
> help its/his/her nephews, brothers, sisters, etc, which will
propagate
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Lucio de Souza Coelho"
> wrote:
> >
> > It should be noticed though that within a native American (or
> native
> > Brazilian, getting an example closer to me) village everyone was
to
> > some degree relative to everyone. So it is more like a culture
were
> > big extended families - mothers, grandmothers, fathers,
> grandfathers,
> > uncles, cousins - live close to each other and take care of each
> > other. Some modern cultures (for instance my own latin/Brazilian
> > culture) resemble that. And of course there is an obvious genetic
> > interest/evolutionary advantage involved in that way of living.
So
> the
> > native American vision was rather an extension of the concept of
> > family than a negation of it...
> >
> Hi Robert, Lucio:
>
> Yes!
>
> The small space communities will have a lot in common with the
> ancient tribal style of living. If you have, let's say, a hundred
> people living 1 million miles (or more) from anyone else, people
> will have to colaborate like in an extended family. That's the
> meaning of tribes. And I think this is the most "natural" way of
> living for people, unlike modern societies where you pack ten
> million people in one place and nobody know their neighbours.
>
> By the way, Lucio, if you got information about the Native heritage
> of modern Brazil, both in genes and culture, please let me know.
>
> Regards,
>
> Omar Vega
>
i envision station having something in the neighborhood of 1000 ppl
ea, give or take. having come from a small town with only a few more
ppl than that, i can tell you that if i had ever had a problem, there
were many ppl that would have helped. small cities like that will be
closer to a family that the cities like new york or england.
On 6/20/06, Xenophile wrote:
(...)
> a) nobody has babies anymore, when clearly obstetricians are still in
> business, and
than the necessary for population replacement. Aren't you using the
fallacy of undue amplification? ;-)
> b) the family no longer exists, when in fact mommy daddy the kids and
> a dog (or cat) is still the most common arraingment.
Indeed. However, in some places (like for instance today's Brazil),
25% of households are already formed by mommy and kids (and
occasionally dogs and cats) and no daddy, and it seems that number
will grow.
Personally I am not worried about *that*, as long as those matriarchal
families continue to have birth rates above replacement.
> I also find it interesting that many of us assume that robots are or
> soon will be capable of mining an asteroid, processing the ore, and
> building a habitat with minimal human intervention, but that
> household chores with the owner less than five metres aways is just
> too much for anything short of human-level AI (which is assumed to be
> impossible in the next half-millinnium or more).
(...)
Maybe we were talking (and thinking) about different animals.
Personally I think that robotic asteroid mining will be something
like:
- A computerized bucket fills itself with regolith.
- The computerized bucket drops the regolith into an ACME portable ore
processor.
- The ore processor separates and smelts the good stuff in the ore by
using pure physical and chemical process, like centrifugation,
heating, etc.
- In the end the ore processor spits a bar of some metal (say, platinum).
- At some point the platinum bars are put inside some robot ship that
goes back to Earth using completely dumb automated orbital navigation
techniques from the 70's.
Perhaps you can even complicate the scenario above by making you ore
processor able to spit steel beams and plates, and then adding a team
of robots able to assemble those beams and plates into a pressure
hull. Construction of such a structure seems a process that can be
easily automated.
The scenario above is simple industrial stuff mostly already existing
on Earth, transplanted to space. And that would be absurdly simple
compared to a Rosie-like robot able to cook my lunch and dinner,
prepare my breakfast, prepare and serve coffee for visitors, wash
dishes and pans by hand after that, clean the cat litter, take the
dust off the furniture, go to the supermarket and grocery stores for
buying goods, and so on. And I am even letting babysitting and elderly
care out of the specifications!