--- In spacesettlers, "Lucio de Souza Coelho" wrote:

> On 6/20/06, Xenophile wrote:

>> a) nobody has babies anymore, when clearly obstetricians are still
>> in business, and

> I think that the original point was that people are having less
> babies than the necessary for population replacement. Aren't you
> using the fallacy of undue amplification? ;-)

I think SOMEBODY'S guilty of exactly that, when I read about habitat
populations disapearing in a single generation.

Thanks Lucio!

I will take a look. This is an issue that I like very much.

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Lucio de Souza Coelho"
wrote:
>
> 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.
> (...)
>
> Hi Omar,
>
> 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/qid=1150825897/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_id=173861&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

In a message dated 6/20/2006 12:03:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
xenophile2002@... writes:

> 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.

I warned you that if you ventured there you would make yourself look foolish.
Who said anything about governments. These would be personal performance
contracts and would have a definite stated lifetime. 50 years at most, more likely
30 years or until the signatory dies or fulfills the terms thereof. Believe
me there will be many signatories who will be willing to pay upward of US$
25,000,000.00 to place their signatures on such a document.
The local government would be established by the second and third generations
all of whom would NOT be signatories to such contracts.

> 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.

You seem to have little idea of what it would take to make an orbital or
planetary society work.
We certainly have a different view than most people as to what it would take.
You may not be such a "no skill joe".
You may be the kind of person who will make any colony a success.

Earlier I posted this: --- Sat May 20, 2006 7:46 PM
In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, jwsmith42000@... wrote:

>> We are designing to do everything ourselves but would hope that we
would not have to do so. I honestly believe that it would be very foolish to
set out on such a journey without the ability to survive without outside
help.

This is one reason why when we do finally launch there will not be
any practicing scientist on board. nor will there be any one who has been
a practicing teacher for more than 5 years in their lifetimes. Nor will there
be
anyone who has an IQ of 145 or more unless that person is exceptional in life

ways.
The people chosen to make the journey would be well developed
generalist, including the medical personal. Each person must have a wide
range of
knowledge in at least 5 areas of life. One of which must be a general
knowledge
of machinery and how it works.

There is more to this idea but I will stop here for the time being. <<

So you may be more qualified than you think. In fact I know that you are.

John Wayne

In a message dated 6/19/2006 11:58:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
xenophile2002@... writes:

> Could any politician 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.

It is true that anyone speaking against family and apple pie are hard to
elect but some have been successful. It is also true that the family is not going
anywhere there will always be family units.
However there are a lot of anti human sociopaths out there and I just do not
want to have to deal with them.

Thank you, John Wayne

> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
Guys I think I see where Jan is going, and a lot of people are missing her
point. Technology may some day replace the physical aspects of
reproduction, but gestation and delivery are just the beginning. Yes people
are reproducing like rabbits today. But are they RAISING children? Are
they producing responsible adults, or just stamping out more whiny adults
with the personality of a 4-year-old? I do think this is a topic for
Spacesettlers.

While it may be true that a little jerking off never hurt anybody, a nation
of 10 million porn addicts tends to change society, and not for the better.
I'm not a preacher; recovering addict is more like it. But I think guys who
demand their rights in this regard should remember the old phrase, your
right to swing your fist stops just short of the other guy's nose.

Ok, say you just got a letter in the mail from Kofi Annan, announcing that
you had been put in charge of designing a successful human society that
would lift people up, all people, bring them to their full potential. The
UN will commit its full resources to assure that your social design will
stand for 500 years, or until it collapses in failure. And the first thing
you write on your new letterhead is "Free Porn for All." But think a
second. The more men are swept up in fantasies of women of physical
perfection and unrealistic personalities, the more the real women around
them everyday seem worthless, insignificant and demanding. An awful lot of
living, interacting and learning from social experience is being replaced by
hours of fun with joysticks.

Meanwhile young women, who in their drive for a mate or a date want to do
what pleases, are faced with simultaneously perfecting their appearance and
suppressing any part of their personality that might give offense to these
hypnotized guys. Not only are most gals unlikely to reach the physical
perfection that will make them even visible to men, they're stunting their
psychological growth by denying who they are on the inside. Sanding off the
interesting edges of young women's personalities to make them easier to
handle is really a form of amputation. I fear for my quirky, funny
13-year-old daughter, when she faces that choice.

Now nobody is advocating making yanking your wankie a crime. But Jan's
point, I think, is that the skills of childrearing, working together with a
mate and nurturing young minds may be "too far down the road already," and
that lives of instant gratification, vapid surface perfection and relative
isolation from human interaction are stunting psychological growth of much
of the current generation of young adults.

One place where Jan and I differ is in gender roles. If somebody had tried
to force my parents into roles of housewife, breadwinner, disciplinarian,
etc., based on their reproductive morphology, my family would have
self-destructed long ago. And many of you have known someone who was an
"absentee father" or "unskilled as a mother" or a "failure as a
breadwinner." I think the social revolutions of the past 50 years have had
the unintended side effect of allowing nurturing men hard-charging career
women to be less ashamed of their natural talents. Guys who are gentle men
as well as gentlemen don't have worry quite so much about being embarassed
into being wife-beating, beer swilling callous tools. The traditional roles
of family members that she talks about may have come to rest in
non-traditional places, as people's talents allow. If it has always taken a
village to raise a child, part of the reason may be that a village is large
enough to give rise to a few truly talented parents and breadwinners, and
yet small enough for them (whatever their sex) to become known and
appreciated.

So what social structure would I recommend for orbital habitat societies?
Maybe more people trained in early childhood education, making preschools
more than just warehouses, subtly keeping the children separate from the
sybarites, child protective agencies that have some science and some legal
muscle on their side, real financial assistance for foster parents and good
school teachers. All sound investments in the future. Also making
discussions about porn versus reality a little more open and honest. But is
this all too new-wave? Are the only successful strategies for child-rearing
going away with Mother Goose, spanking and safe flower-carpeted hillsides?
Personally I doubt it, but a case could be made. What do you think?

BradW

> From: Brad Walsh
> While it may be true that a little jerking off never hurt
> anybody, a nation of 10 million porn addicts tends to
> change society, and not for the better.

I think you'll find there are a lot more than ten million porn addicts in
America. Last time I checked that industry rakes in more money than
Hollywood. Is this like 10 million TV watchers would be bad for society? Or
ten thousand eye-strainers (book readers) would be bad for society? Maybe 10
million light bulb users don't appreciate the family values inherited in
getting up at the crack of dawn and going out into the freezing winter to
get another log for the fireplace? They probably don't, and I see no reason
why they'd want to.

The 'tentacle rape' lesson also applies here. Japanese depictions of demons
molesting young school girls came about because Japanese law prohibited the
depiction of two adults making love to each other. If that sounds like 1984
doublespeak - it was. The TR genre fell over and died pretty much as soon as
that law was repealed. Most western style pornography is the result of
similar restrictions; which are similarly imposed by the 'moral majority'.

> The UN will commit its full resources

Right. "Full resources." Yeah, that's a good one.

> [woman will] seem worthless, insignificant and demanding.

Not to imply that they are this, but I think you might be idealizing
'ordinary woman' the same way the mainstream porn trade idolised the Barbie
doll figure. Ordinary woman tend to have flaws, individually and on-mass,
and there's nothing wrong in asking them to address those flaws, or at least
become aware of them - just like they have asked men to become aware of
their flaws. There's nothing wrong with woman wanting to have their cake,
and eat it, and lose ten pounds at the same time, and have a man paw for it
all - but some also need to realise it can't and more importantly shouldn't
work that way all the time.

> I fear for my quirky, funny
> 13-year-old daughter, when she faces that choice.

Who of course will not have similar unrealistic goals of her own. The evils
of the boy band trade at work there...

Unfortunately look good (or at least looking better than your peers) will
always require some effort. Just as a peacock how heavy that tail of his is.

> So what social structure would I recommend for orbital
> habitat societies? Also making discussions
> about porn versus reality a little more open and honest.

All good ideas. But to do the last (as an example) schools would have to
admit that porn exists, and most cultures today wouldn't allow that.

--- 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.

An explanation that is more congruent with evolutionary theory is that
homosexuality is brought on by pathogens.

TangoMan

Wow, Brad, you raised too many issues to even begin to cover, but
maybe the point has been made, that we must think about these
issues.

I hope that there will be support for the side that believes in
sexual purity, as defined by the elevation of sexual activity to a
spiritual as well as physical event between a man and woman in the
service of the creation of new life, with related restriction of
sexual activity for other reasons like personal pleasure, and also
with related appreciation of the roles that go with the natural, un-
tech-assisted, bodies of men and women. Real respect for those roles
and no intention of blending them. (This is all as taught by the
catechism of the Catholic Church. It means no gay sex, no private
masturbatory sex, no out-of-wedlock-yes-wedlock-heterosexual sex,
yes, all that. Pretty horny society, hey? Could you imagine that
might not be a bad thing?)

To me, that formula means that the very highest ideal life possible
for women is on the playing table for your consideration. Really
it's a great deal for women if only it were really lived.

Women would be have to be well educated, the first bone of
contention, the first difference, as Brad alluded to, unlike in many
societies and very unlike muslimism at least as practiced. Why is
this? Because the product of her body, her offspring, earns an
incredibly high individual respect, is the purpose, the reason for
all sexual activity, may not be killed for any reason, even by her,
and second, because she is the best person to nurture her offspring
for their first years, she must be well educated. (This high value
on the individual and their rights is part of the catechism of the
Catholic Church and was part of the European ideal until very
recently.) When human life is held as sacred, and when the logical
deductions are drawn from that equation so that social practice is
actually affected, women's treatment is incredibly enhanced.

Of course, this hardly ever happens, that social practice is
actually affected in a society that thus gives only lip service to
the ideal. The ideal is usually deformed, as in the elevated
treatment of comfortable southern white ladies and the often
heartless treatment of the poor woman, black and white.

But it is my own belief that economic pressures in contradiction to
the ideal are the cause of this inequal application. Specifically,
there is often no positive economic value to the individual child
matching the philosophic value given by the prevalent social norm in
a Christian society, in a society that tries to apply Christian
values.

But what if suddenly every individual child were really economically
valued? Man, would things change for kids and for women, too. And we
have every reason to think that could be true once mankind has
passed the barrier for life off the planet. We have every reason to
think that we will have seen the end of unemployment. The only
limitation to human comfort--I mean the end of poverty and the
discomfort of poverty--would be population.

When this ideal is deformed, when bullshit rules and women get to do
all the baby having and baby raising and have to do all the work in
society, too, and cannot even fully participate in all the decision-
making but must trust to men to do more in this regard as well as
heavy lifting--then this ideal is hell on earth. It is the ideal
deformed that cause women to turn to feminism.

But when the ideal is lived, it is perfect for women and is really
what most women want even when measured by secular organs like a
Cosmo survey (that is, a life long monogamous marriage, with kids,
ability to stay home with the kids when they are little with no
threat to economic security, good education and ability to work when
kids are in good schools).

I know, the ideal has never been lived. But the conditions on Earth
have never been exactly economically right. Maybe they won't be
right for all kids and women in all locations, all the time, when we
break into the high frontier, either. But there seems a chance. And
if so, this ideal, this Christian (not Muslim, not Hindu, not
tribal) ideal, is the best yet. I hope that side wins. Yes, I am
defining Christian as covered in the Catholic Church's catechism and
not Reformist distortians.

So Brad and I differ on a couple things, but maybe not in the long
run. Time will tell.

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> Guys I think I see where Jan is going, and a lot of people are
missing her
> point. Technology may some day replace the physical aspects of
> reproduction, but gestation and delivery are just the beginning.
Yes people
> are reproducing like rabbits today. But are they RAISING
children? Are
> they producing responsible adults, or just stamping out more whiny
adults
> with the personality of a 4-year-old? I do think this is a topic
for
> Spacesettlers.
>
> While it may be true that a little jerking off never hurt anybody,
a nation
> of 10 million porn addicts tends to change society, and not for
the better.
> I'm not a preacher; recovering addict is more like it. But I
think guys who
> demand their rights in this regard should remember the old phrase,
your
> right to swing your fist stops just short of the other guy's nose.
>
> Ok, say you just got a letter in the mail from Kofi Annan,
announcing that
> you had been put in charge of designing a successful human society
that
> would lift people up, all people, bring them to their full
potential. The
> UN will commit its full resources to assure that your social
design will
> stand for 500 years, or until it collapses in failure. And the
first thing
> you write on your new letterhead is "Free Porn for All." But
think a
> second. The more men are swept up in fantasies of women of
physical
> perfection and unrealistic personalities, the more the real women
around
> them everyday seem worthless, insignificant and demanding. An
awful lot of
> living, interacting and learning from social experience is being
replaced by
> hours of fun with joysticks.
>
> Meanwhile young women, who in their drive for a mate or a date
want to do
> what pleases, are faced with simultaneously perfecting their
appearance and
> suppressing any part of their personality that might give offense
to these
> hypnotized guys. Not only are most gals unlikely to reach the
physical
> perfection that will make them even visible to men, they're
stunting their
> psychological growth by denying who they are on the inside.
Sanding off the
> interesting edges of young women's personalities to make them
easier to
> handle is really a form of amputation. I fear for my quirky,
funny
> 13-year-old daughter, when she faces that choice.
>
> Now nobody is advocating making yanking your wankie a crime. But
Jan's
> point, I think, is that the skills of childrearing, working
together with a
> mate and nurturing young minds may be "too far down the road
already," and
> that lives of instant gratification, vapid surface perfection and
relative
> isolation from human interaction are stunting psychological growth
of much
> of the current generation of young adults.
>
> One place where Jan and I differ is in gender roles. If somebody
had tried
> to force my parents into roles of housewife, breadwinner,
disciplinarian,
> etc., based on their reproductive morphology, my family would have
> self-destructed long ago. And many of you have known someone who
was an
> "absentee father" or "unskilled as a mother" or a "failure as a
> breadwinner." I think the social revolutions of the past 50 years
have had
> the unintended side effect of allowing nurturing men hard-charging
career
> women to be less ashamed of their natural talents. Guys who are
gentle men
> as well as gentlemen don't have worry quite so much about being
embarassed
> into being wife-beating, beer swilling callous tools. The
traditional roles
> of family members that she talks about may have come to rest in
> non-traditional places, as people's talents allow. If it has
always taken a
> village to raise a child, part of the reason may be that a village
is large
> enough to give rise to a few truly talented parents and
breadwinners, and
> yet small enough for them (whatever their sex) to become known and
> appreciated.
>
> So what social structure would I recommend for orbital habitat
societies?
> Maybe more people trained in early childhood education, making
preschools
> more than just warehouses, subtly keeping the children separate
from the
> sybarites, child protective agencies that have some science and
some legal
> muscle on their side, real financial assistance for foster parents
and good
> school teachers. All sound investments in the future. Also
making
> discussions about porn versus reality a little more open and
honest. But is
> this all too new-wave? Are the only successful strategies for
child-rearing
> going away with Mother Goose, spanking and safe flower-carpeted
hillsides?
> Personally I doubt it, but a case could be made. What do you
think?

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"

> 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.

1.) Define Eugenics. Don't mix up state ordered policies which are
negative in scope (depriving people of bodily sovereignty) with
individual focused choices (enhancing the reproductive rights of
people). To have the State round you up and then sterilize you, or
kill you, is completely different from a woman being very selective
about who she wants to have children with, or a couple advertising for
eggs on Ivy League campuses, or couples using PEGD to eliminate
embryos positive for Tays-Sachs, or couples in the future deciding to
have a child via IVF and electing to give the child an IQ boost.

Negative eugencis and positive eugenics both work towards the same
end, but there is a difference between the Planned
Parenthood/Progressive/NAZI policies and the soccer-mom choices.

2.) If you're really inclined to argue which ideologies have left the
bloodiest footprints through history, then Eugenics is a sorry loser,
for the winner, hands down, is the Class-based analysis that was
handed to us from Marx. The body counts of communist regimes make the
crimes of the Nazi pale in comparison.

There is nothing natural about having a tax system that is based on
class, where progressive taxation rewards the lower income earners and
penalizes the higher income earners. Not complying with such a system
insures that the brutality of gov't will be exercised in your direction.

TangoMan

> But there seems a chance. And
> if so, this ideal, this Christian (not Muslim, not Hindu, not
> tribal) ideal, is the best yet. I hope that side wins. Yes, I am
> defining Christian as covered in the Catholic Church's catechism
>and
> not Reformist distortians.
>
> So Brad and I differ on a couple things, but maybe not in the long
> run. Time will tell.
>
> Jan
>

Hi Jan,

Well, that ideal is not only Catholic, but Christian in general.
Catholics of today recognize Orthodox, Protestant and others are
also Christians. They even work together these days trying to stop
something of the Sodoma and Gomorra style of society we live in
today.

Moreover, that ideal came from Jesus himself. Jesus message is what
really matters for Christiany of recent times. Inquisition and witch
burning are now part of the past.

(Unfortunately it took thousand of years for the churches to realize
that is the important part of their faiths, and not the use of force
against the ones that though different)

In short, the Jesus ideal is the ideal of being a good person,
because from there good societies come, and that is what pleases God.

Omar Vega

--- In spacesettlers, jwsmith42000 wrote:

> I warned you that if you ventured there you would make yourself look
> foolish.

You warned somebody else of that. And some risks are worth taking.

> Who said anything about governments.

You have set yourself up as the guy who makes the rules.
"Don't like how I think: go elsewhere."
Now, I like to think that I'm too honest a guy to pull something like
this, but let me put it this way: My wife and I come aboard. We sign
whatever you put in front of us. Once we are aboard, we state that we
in fact will not be having any children, and what are you going to do
about it. Do you have the authority to kick us out of your habitat?
Do you have any way of backing up that authority should we refuse to
leave? If the answer to both questions is "yes," then you are by
definition the government.

And don't say that you'll just sue me in Earth court. If we are a few
hundred kilometres to a few light years away from Earth, then they
probably won't bother to send the cops. And if you *are* able to do
this, then you are under the authority of some Earth government, and
your ability to to pull "my way or the hyway" stuff with how many
children a woman bears is going to be quite limited.

> These would be personal performance contracts and would have a
> definite stated lifetime. 50 years at most, more likely
> 30 years or until the signatory dies or fulfills the terms thereof.
> Believe me there will be many signatories who will be willing to pay
> upward of US$25,000,000.00 to place their signatures on such a
> document.

This I believe. Especially if you are the only game in town. If you
are not, however...

> The local government would be established by the second and third
> generations all of whom would NOT be signatories to such contracts.

Your society isn't going to be an anarchy for the first generation.
Not if you can somehow enforce a "have three kids" law.

>> 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.

> You seem to have little idea of what it would take to make an
> orbital or planetary society work.

Well, you might have something there. I certainly won't be nominating
myself as habitat govenor.

> We certainly have a different view than most people as to what it
> would take.
> You may not be such a "no skill joe".
> You may be the kind of person who will make any colony a success.

It would be nice to discover that I'm a valuble addition to a habitat
population. And that the habitat I'm valuble to isn't going to run my
life right down to how many babies my wife and I make.

But if I'm so valuable, I can hope that some other habitat recognises it.

Hi, Omar,

I wrote,

this Christian (not Muslim, not Hindu, not
> tribal) ideal, is the best yet. I hope that side wins. Yes, I am
> defining Christian as covered in the Catholic Church's catechism
>and
> not Reformist distortians.
>
> So Brad and I differ on a couple things, but maybe not in the long
> run. Time will tell.
>
> Jan
>

and you wrote,

Hi Jan,

Well, that ideal is not only Catholic, but Christian in general.
Catholics of today recognize Orthodox, Protestant and others are
also Christians. They even work together these days trying to stop
something of the Sodoma and Gomorra style of society we live in
today.

But no, Omar. Some "Christian" Protestant sects today accept and
even promote another "ideal" sexual morality than the one I offered,
and hence the distinction. If I did violence, it is the violence of
insisting on a definition. I said I am using the Catholic Church's
defintion of ideal sexual morality as enunciated in the catechism
and calling this definition Christian. I certainly stand by that
definition, and I'm allowed, since I was the person discussing an
ideal morality in the first place, one kinder and gentler to women,
kids, and the world than the one promised by liberality.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> > But there seems a chance. And
> > if so, this ideal, this Christian (not Muslim, not Hindu, not
> > tribal) ideal, is the best yet. I hope that side wins. Yes, I am
> > defining Christian as covered in the Catholic Church's catechism
> >and
> > not Reformist distortians.
> >
> > So Brad and I differ on a couple things, but maybe not in the
long
> > run. Time will tell.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> Hi Jan,
>
> Well, that ideal is not only Catholic, but Christian in general.
> Catholics of today recognize Orthodox, Protestant and others are
> also Christians. They even work together these days trying to stop
> something of the Sodoma and Gomorra style of society we live in
> today.
>
> Moreover, that ideal came from Jesus himself. Jesus message is
what
> really matters for Christiany of recent times. Inquisition and
witch
> burning are now part of the past.
>
> (Unfortunately it took thousand of years for the churches to
realize
> that is the important part of their faiths, and not the use of
force
> against the ones that though different)
>
> In short, the Jesus ideal is the ideal of being a good person,
> because from there good societies come, and that is what pleases
God.

No, when I become Social Archetect of the World, I don't put "Free
Porn for All" at the top of the list. Not sure I put it on the list
at all. Hey, the Internet has done that already.

I do, however, put "Get Governments Out of People's Sexual Fantasies"
near the top, though perhaps not AT the top. "Get Governments Out of
People's Political Discorse" and "Get Governments Out of People's
Faith" go even higher on the list.

And because I understand that the world is a complicated place, I make
exceptions that allow the governments of the world to take action
against those who would force people into pornography, prostitution,
etc. So no, my dream world doesn't have legal pre-teen snuff porn.
Indeed, without resources being wasted on chasing every nipple pic,
the kiddy-porners will be caught more easily.

I realize that my American bias is showing here, but don't worry about
it. I'n very likely to become Social Archetect of the World anytime
soon... am I?

<_<

>_>

Your daughter will be fine. She doesn't need to look like a
centerfold or talk like, um, whatever it is you are afraid she has to
talk like. Quirkiness is in, and even considered sexy. I even see
hot girls wearing T-shirts emblazoned with "Talk Nerdy to Me."

--- In spacesettlers, "ANTIcarrot" wrote:

> The 'tentacle rape' lesson also applies here. Japanese depictions of
> demons molesting young school girls came about because Japanese law
> prohibited the depiction of two adults making love to each other. If
> that sounds like 1984 doublespeak - it was.

Yep. And in the old time Soviet Union, it was illegal to print
anything anti-semetic, while in the US the Nazis got to march down the
street with swasticas flying. But would you rather be a Jew in 1980's
America or 1980's Russia? Yeah, that's what I thought. Censorship
does not insure moral behavior, but it does give a fig leaf to government.

> The TR genre fell over and died pretty much as soon as that law was
> repealed.

WHAT!?! But, but...
Does this mean that we will NEVER see any more of the adventures of
Miko Mido? What about the Amatsu Twins? AAAAHHHH!!!!!

Tangoman wrote:

**There is nothing natural about having a tax system that is based on
class, where progressive taxation rewards the lower income earners and
penalizes the higher income earners. Not complying with such a system
insures that the brutality of gov't will be exercised in your direction.**

1. There are two cheerful sweepers who turn up every morning to remove the waste from our street. They would be classed as belonging to the lower income group, I would belong to a higher income group. The work they are doing, is it less important than what I am doing, even though they earns less than me? Is there anything wrong in the government expecting me to pay more tax, so that people like these sweepers can benefit indirectly?

2. Do you think Bill Gates made all his money all by himself?

3. Let us convert money into commodity. Can we sleep on two beds at the time? Is it unreasonable for the government to expect that a person having 10 beds can afford to share one?

4. There is this habit in USA of paying chief executives sums in millions of $s. Is it likely that this executive is really taking all the important decisions on his own without help from very smart subordinates. Is it ethical for executives to accept salaries they know they do not deserve?

We can debate the amount by which the rich should be taxed more than those who have less. But can we really question the need to tax differentially, especially in our existing economic system where there is no limit to the amount a person can earn?

Selvaraj

> From: sraj
> 4. There is this habit in USA of paying chief executives sums
> in millions of $s. Is it likely that this executive is really
> taking all the important decisions on his own without help
> from very smart subordinates. Is it ethical for executives to
> accept salaries they know they do not deserve?

5. If the government taxes the sweepers too much it has to increase their
sallery just so they can afford local housing. One of the definitions of
poor is that they only have a $100 left at the end of the month after food
and bills. There's no practical way you can tax such people more.

John

people keep discussing the number of children being force. i
personally see it being more of a lottery. many ppl will not want to
have a certain numbers, some less, some more. in order for the system
to work there will have to be a certain number per year.

here is something like what i think will happen. each person will
have a set chance allotment. this is theirs simply because they live
and breath. then there is a certain allotment of chance due to the
first child of the couple. each succeeding child will have a smaller
chance allotment. then each year you are not chosen, the child
allotment grows. when a couple decides to have a child, they put
their name in. the computer adds their chance allotments up and adds
their numbers to the list. once they are chosen, all of their numbers
are removed.

if a family decides that one child is enough they will not put
their numbers in again. if someone wants to have a third or forth
child, they have few numbers, but they still have that possibility.

once they are chosen, they system will do all it can to aid them in
having the child. one of the things i do see being done, is that all
young ppl are highly encourage to donate eggs and sperm while they
are young. this does three things. if there is a disaster that
damages the gene pool, they have a large supply of reserve gene pool.
if they are not choisen for a long time, and then get a chance, they
will not have to worry about "old weak" eggs and sperm.

this system allows more flexability yet still maintains the
population size at what is wanted or the increase at what is desired.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
>
> --- In spacesettlers, jwsmith42000 wrote:
>
> > I warned you that if you ventured there you would make yourself
look
> > foolish.
>
> You warned somebody else of that. And some risks are worth taking.
>
> > Who said anything about governments.
>
> You have set yourself up as the guy who makes the rules.
> "Don't like how I think: go elsewhere."
> Now, I like to think that I'm too honest a guy to pull something
like
> this, but let me put it this way: My wife and I come aboard. We
sign
> whatever you put in front of us. Once we are aboard, we state that
we
> in fact will not be having any children, and what are you going to
do
> about it. Do you have the authority to kick us out of your
habitat?
> Do you have any way of backing up that authority should we refuse to
> leave? If the answer to both questions is "yes," then you are by
> definition the government.
>
> And don't say that you'll just sue me in Earth court. If we are a
few
> hundred kilometres to a few light years away from Earth, then they
> probably won't bother to send the cops. And if you *are* able to do
> this, then you are under the authority of some Earth government, and
> your ability to to pull "my way or the hyway" stuff with how many
> children a woman bears is going to be quite limited.
>
> > These would be personal performance contracts and would have a
> > definite stated lifetime. 50 years at most, more likely
> > 30 years or until the signatory dies or fulfills the terms
thereof.
> > Believe me there will be many signatories who will be willing to
pay
> > upward of US$25,000,000.00 to place their signatures on such a
> > document.
>
> This I believe. Especially if you are the only game in town. If
you
> are not, however...
>
> > The local government would be established by the second and third
> > generations all of whom would NOT be signatories to such
contracts.
>
> Your society isn't going to be an anarchy for the first generation.
> Not if you can somehow enforce a "have three kids" law.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > You seem to have little idea of what it would take to make an
> > orbital or planetary society work.
>
> Well, you might have something there. I certainly won't be
nominating
> myself as habitat govenor.
>
> > We certainly have a different view than most people as to what it
> > would take.
> > You may not be such a "no skill joe".
> > You may be the kind of person who will make any colony a success.
>
> It would be nice to discover that I'm a valuble addition to a
habitat
> population. And that the habitat I'm valuble to isn't going to run
my
> life right down to how many babies my wife and I make.
>
> But if I'm so valuable, I can hope that some other habitat
recognises it.

I believe it would be better simply to keep building space islands to
accomadate growing populations.

Government attempts at social engineering or social planning tend to
foul up.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
>

> We can debate the amount by which the rich should be taxed more than
those who have less. But can we really question the need to tax
differentially, especially in our existing economic system where there
is no limit to the amount a person can earn?
>
> Selvaraj

Sure you can, so long as you can see beyond what we're all immersed
in. You could have a tax system which taxed income by the number of
children a couple had, thereby increasing the incentive for the well
educated to have children, because the amount that they would save on
taxes would grow proportionately as their income grew, and create
disincentive for the poorly educated to have children.

For example, a single person making $100,000 per year pays X tax. A
couple making $100,000/year pays X/2 in taxes. A couple with 2
children making $100,000/year pays X/4 in tax. This presents a big
baby bonus and ongoing annual tax relief to society's most able to
have children, and for society's least able, instead of supporting
them with all sorts of welfare programs, which don't penalize, and may
actually encourage, having more children, such a program would
disincentivize having children, for the tax savings on an income of
$10,000 would be only 10% of the savings from the higher income couple.

Work can be done by substituting technology for human labor and we can
thus increase productivity.

TangoMan

In a message dated 6/21/2006 5:52:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
xenophile2002@... writes:

> --- In spacesettlers, jwsmith42000 wrote:
>
> > I warned you that if you ventured there you would make yourself look
> > foolish.
>
> You warned somebody else of that. And some risks are worth taking.

I warned every one of that. Just because it was contained in a pose to some
in particular does not mean that it was aimed at that person.

> > Who said anything about governments.
>
> You have set yourself up as the guy who makes the rules.
> "Don't like how I think: go elsewhere."
> Now, I like to think that I'm too honest a guy to pull something like
> this, but let me put it this way: My wife and I come aboard. We sign
> whatever you put in front of us. Once we are aboard, we state that we
> in fact will not be having any children, and what are you going to do
> about it. Do you have the authority to kick us out of your habitat?
> Do you have any way of backing up that authority should we refuse to
> leave? If the answer to both questions is "yes," then you are by
> definition the government.

Not necessarily, but I am in control of the property. As a property owner I
have those rights.
Also if you signed such a contract and then decided to ignore the contents
there of you would be a thief and a liar. Anyone who is a thief and a liar is to
close physiologically to a killer for my liking and therefore I have the
right of preemptive self defense by exiling you in any manner I so choose as long
as I do not kill you. I would do so and keep your $50,000,000.00 as
compensation for my efforts and your deception.

> And don't say that you'll just sue me in Earth court. If we are a few
> hundred kilometers to a few light years away from Earth, then they
> probably won't bother to send the cops. And if you *are* able to do
> this, then you are under the authority of some Earth government, and
> your ability to pull "my way or the highway" stuff with how many
> children a woman bears is going to be quite limited.

That might be true but there are some honest people in this world. I would be
providing a service for a price. Many people would honestly enter into such a
contract. Just because you are not one of them does not mean that they are
limited.

> > These would be personal performance contracts and would have a
> > definite stated lifetime. 50 years at most, more likely
> > 30 years or until the signatory dies or fulfills the terms thereof.
> > Believe me there will be many signatories who will be willing to pay
> > upward of US$25,000,000.00 to place their signatures on such a
> > document.
>
> This I believe. Especially if you are the only game in town. If you
> are not, however...

Hurry up and get your idea on the road so I will have some competition. Let
the market decide.

> > The local government would be established by the second and third
> > generations all of whom would NOT be signatories to such contracts.
>
> Your society isn't going to be an anarchy for the first generation.
> Not if you can somehow enforce a "have three kids" law.

You are really exhibiting your lack of knowledge.

> >> 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.
>
> > You seem to have little idea of what it would take to make an
> > orbital or planetary society work.
>
> Well, you might have something there. I certainly won't be nominating
> myself as habitat governor.

Don't like it go somewhere else or build your own.

> > We certainly have a different view than most people as to what it
> > would take.
> > You may not be such a "no skill joe".
> > You may be the kind of person who will make any colony a success.
>
> It would be nice to discover that I'm a valuable addition to a habitat
> population. And that the habitat I'm valuable to isn't going to run my
> life right down to how many babies my wife and I make.
>
> But if I'm so valuable, I can hope that some other habitat recognizes it.

Get busy and build your own do not wait for someone else. With your attitude
and the possibility of your unsuitability no one else would have you.

John Wayne

> From: jwsmith42000@...
> Not necessarily, but I am in control of the property. As a
> property owner I have those rights.

An entity has no such powers unless the law grants them or the individual
can inforce them; in which case they are the law or representatives of it.

> Also if you signed such a contract and then decided to ignore
> the contents there of you would be a thief and a liar.

If you draw up a contract that is null and void under the juristiction it
will operate under then you are an idiot and a fool.

No legal system on the planet would recognise the kind of contract you are
describing. If as the property owner (of the colony presumably) you are
really the sole legal authority then other nations and legal entities will
see you and treat you as a defacto government - and will require to you
abide by certian standards.

> Anyone who is a thief and a liar is to
> close physiologically to a killer for my liking

Anyone who thinks they can buy and sell human lives is very close to a slave
trader.

> I would do so and keep your $50,000,000.00 as
> compensation for my efforts and your deception.

Really? And what are you going to do with it? Because no one will trade with
you, and with no government recognising the legal contract it woudl be view
by everyone (aside from yourself) as theft.

> That might be true but there are some honest people in this
> world.

Speaking of which, what if they enter into it honestly, then become
incapable of fulfilling their obligations two days in due to a physical
accident? Will you keep their money then? Will you send them packing? What
rulkes will you use to decide?

Honest or not if you don't follow your own rules no one will do business
with you, and you never get your colony built in the first place. If one of
your rules is 'I can do anything I want', or similar, then the kind of
people who will sign, will not be the kind you want for a sustainabble
colony.

> You are really exhibiting your lack of knowledge.

Which doesn't mean anything. How will your proposed colony be governed for
the first few generations?

> Don't like it go somewhere else or build your own.

And how exactly are you proposing to build yours to start with?

> John Wayne

Ah, a cowboy. That would explain a few things.

John

Take from the rich and give to the poor.

Otherwise, you're faced with a tiger that hasn't been fed.

Feed the tiger.

George
cygo.com

On 6/22/06, sraj wrote:

In a message dated 6/24/2006 4:52:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dante_feditech@... writes:

>
> > From: jwsmith42000@...
> > Not necessarily, but I am in control of the property. As a
> > property owner I have those rights.
>
> An entity has no such powers unless the law grants them or the individual
> can enforce them; in which case they are the law or representatives of it.
>
> > Also if you signed such a contract and then decided to ignore
> > the contents there of you would be a thief and a liar.
>
> If you draw up a contract that is null and void under the jurisdiction it
> will operate under then you are an idiot and a fool.
>
> No legal system on the planet would recognize the kind of contract you are
> describing. If as the property owner (of the colony presumably) you are
> really the sole legal authority then other nations and legal entities will
> see you and treat you as a defacto government -- and will require to you
> abide by certain standards.

You jail house lawyers would be funny if that were possible.

> > Anyone who is a thief and a liar is to
> > close physiologically to a killer for my liking
>
> Anyone who thinks they can buy and sell human lives is very close to a slave
> trader.

That proves that you are not very wise and that you honor those who would lie
and defraud others. These would be freely entered into contracts. Slavery
entails the use of force. They are free to leave and I am free to tell them to
go if they violate the terms of the contract. I will remember not to enter into
a contract with you.

>
> > I would do so and keep your $50,000,000.00 as
> > compensation for my efforts and your deception.
>
> Really? And what are you going to do with it? Because no one will trade with
> you, and with no government recognizing the legal contract it would be view
> by everyone (aside from yourself) as theft.

You have little understanding. I am very glad that you are expressing your
opinion here.

> > That might be true but there are some honest people in this world.
>
> Speaking of which, what if they enter into it honestly, then become
> incapable of fulfilling their obligations two days in due to a physical
> accident? Will you keep their money then? Will you send them packing? What
> rules will you use to decide?

That was already discussed and would be covered in the contract. As said you
are making yourself look silly.

> Honest or not if you don't follow your own rules no one will do business
> with you, and you never get your colony built in the first place. If one of
> your rules is 'I can do anything I want,' or similar, then the kind of
> people who will sign, will not be the kind you want for a sustainable
> colony.

I do follow rules acceptable to most others. That is the hallmark of
civilization. You wanting to cancel a contract on a whim, are the one not following
established rules. You should think before you open your mouth.
Humm!! maybe not, maybe you should just continue to spout off as you are
doing. Good man, keep at it.

> > You are really exhibiting your lack of knowledge.
>
> Which doesn't mean anything. How will your proposed colony be governed for
> the first few generations?

Well, that would take a few pages and I am not going to write them here. You
can buy the book. But basically the first group would elect their own leaders
after they had been living together for the first 6 months and no law would
be expressed except that there would be no room for force or fraud.

> > Don't like it go somewhere else or build your own.
>
> And how exactly are you proposing to build yours to start with?

Buy the book!!

> > John Wayne
>
> Ah, a cowboy. That would explain a few things.

Hi Ho Silver!! Away!!!

> John

The Cowboy

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, jwsmith42000@... wrote:

>
> That proves that you are not very wise and that you honor those who
would lie
> and defraud others. These would be freely entered into contracts.
Slavery
> entails the use of force. They are free to leave and I am free to
tell them to
> go if they violate the terms of the contract. I will remember not
to enter into
> a contract with you.
>

they would only be free to leave if their freedom was guaranteed,
something that would not be assured. the only reason that people in
American and many other countries have the freedom to leave if they
don't like the situation they are in, is that there are people who
are willing to lay down their lives to ensure that freedom. in a
space station, the communications would be controlled (radiation
shielding would do a number on radio and TV signals, so all signals
would have to go though a conduct, which means controlled), a persons
ability to move about is limited, and his options are those given to
him by the person that owns the station. IF the station owner is not
that benevolent, the person would only have the right to leave when
the owner said he had to. also there is the fact that it would cost a
lot of money to get that person out of the station. for a non
benevolent owner, it would be cheaper to arrange an accident. after a
few accidents, others would be less likely to ask to leave.
>
> That was already discussed and would be covered in the contract. As
said you
> are making yourself look silly.
>

the problem is that whether or not its in the contract, is not as
important as whether or not its being enforced or is enforceable.

>
> I do follow rules acceptable to most others. That is the hallmark
of
> civilization. You wanting to cancel a contract on a whim, are the
one not following
> established rules. You should think before you open your mouth.
> Humm!! maybe not, maybe you should just continue to spout off as
you are
> doing. Good man, keep at it.
>

really, and that means all of the slum lords that are not following
the rules of their contracts with the tenants, nor the rules the city
imposes but does not have the manpower to enforce, are not part of
civilaztion? the courts are full of contractor and contractees that
are complaining that their contracts were not followed, that rules
were not followed. perhaps before you talk about others you should
open your eyes to reality. just because you and i follow the rule,
that does not mean everyone does.

>
> Well, that would take a few pages and I am not going to write them
here. You
> can buy the book. But basically the first group would elect their
own leaders
> after they had been living together for the first 6 months and no
law would
> be expressed except that there would be no room for force or fraud.
>
actually most likely the owners of the station would be in control,
although they might pretend to allow the rest to choise. problem is
since it would be impossble to get the entire 10000 ppl of the
station together in one spot at one time, your talking about
communtications between smaller groups. just who do you think would
control those communications.

> From: jwsmith42000@...
> You jail house lawyers would be funny if that were possible.
> That proves that you are not very wise
> You have little understanding.
> As said you are making yourself look silly.

Wise people do not begin speaking by insulting their opponent and end by
refusing to explain their point of view. Trolls do that.

John