# 8392 bydondavis@... on June 22, 2006, 2:26 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
wrote:
> 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.
extremist comments suitable context. I'm sure you will be among the
first in line when the Church of Rome takes applications for its
colony. If you think people who have a different view of society are
morally inferior, whatever their religious world views, that is your
right and I hope you are able to find an ideal society to your liking
along with the myraids of others who will be filling space colonies
with their brands of like minded people.
My space colony will be something like Burning Man
(http://www.donaldedavis.com/PARTS/BMINTRO.html) before the
harrassment by the BLM was commonplace and something like the Haight
Ashbury idealistic movement when people were open to new ideas, new
living patterns, new music and new states of consiousness. There will
be no guns, not even for the cops, no snooping into our bedrooms,
bladders, and brains, no bigotry and especially no imposition of
restrictions based on religious values. Consenting adults can do what
they wish among themselves without some athority figures deciding to
try to make the private life of others their business.
A strength of the space colony idea is that it offers hope to those
who yearn for living according to their ideals, too often something
being taken away by 'muddled majority rule' restrictions enforced by
uniformed thugs with guns. This applies to liberals, John Birchers,
nudists, religious fanatics Christian or not, and 'Dick and Jane'
milktoast American ideal family groups. All deserve a chance to create
societies to their liking in independent enviornments. All deserve to
be left alone by others.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in ruling ranks of society
who take an unhealthy interest in what consenting adults do among each
other, what they read and what kind of intoxicants and intimacy they
enjoy among themselves. They seek to wipe out such things that they do
not understand and think should not exist. They wish entire groups of
otherwise functional people would dissappear.
When governments try to regulate the reproductive lives of people
under their power, the results are often ugly. We have the case of
Nazi Germany, which outlawed abortion as soon as they got in power,
and generally disenfranchised women from the work force. America
encouraged women to work, and this was one of the deciding factors in
our victory in World War II. More recently, we have pre revolution
Romania and present day China, one which monitored monthly cycles to
register and force the completion of all pregnancies, the latter doing
so to enforce abortions. Both are repungnant and contrary to common
decency, if there can be said to be such a thing in the multicultural
cacaphony that is the human Race.
The idea that we have to compulsively abundantly breed is an
ingrained product of ancient high death rate conditions, today people
are cared for so well compared to even 100 years ago that we have to
ease up on the production rate in order to avoid having enviornmental
conditions get out of hand in order to maintain decent standards of
living for all these people. Women will try to limit the number of
children they have as they become aware of better lives they can have
by rising above third world standards of living. Once mass
communication is available, things people really want to learn about
are propagated and the resultd speak for themselves.
Part of the very desire for Space Colonization is an excersize of
the world view given us by science and philosophy that we can direct
our own destiny as a species. It is a result of mass ability to think
about such things without relying on power figure in government and
clergy to do our thinking for us. it is a sign that 'We are as Gods
and we might asd well start getting good at it!'
I can remember as a child, and I'm not quite old yet, a world with
only half the population of the world of today. That is a terrifying
thing to contemplete when you consider it took from the beginning of
Humanity roughly up to a million years ago (by Human I mean someone
with sufficent genetic compatability to modern people to have healthy
children with) to the early 1800's for the population to reach ONE
BILLION. That number was added to our fragile Earth in the last 12
years!!! How much can we ask of poor Gaiea? If there is a mass
realization of this state of affairs in the industrialized workd it
should be taken as a good sign. Even if the population declines to a
fraction of that of today that should be seen as only a smooth
progress to an ideal population level. The number of people really
required to keep the Human race going isn't really large at all.
It is suggested that the 'ignorant third world breeders' will
ultimately take over the Earth because the industrialized world will
die out. Let me repeat that only a replacement level at a level far
less than today is really needed. If a few generations don't quite
replace themselves it will mean a less crowded richer society that
will be emulated by others made aware of why such places are so
desirable. They created their reality for themselves and as people
become informed and elevated above third world status they will also
create better realities for themselves. Just as in Soviet Russia,
efforts to keep mass media away from young people will be doomed to
failure. Some day even Afghanistan will be filled with televisions and
increasingly dissatisfied youth sick of Islamic restrictions on their
lives.
Don
# 8393 byoevega@... on June 22, 2006, 3:52 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hi,
> > 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.
>
> Alright, so you are a fan of Catholicism, that gives your numerous
> extremist comments suitable context.
Pretty absurd comments are yours, friend. Take myself as an example.
I am agnostic, not Catholic. However, I DO BELIEVE the ethics of the
Catholic church are excellent.
>I'm sure you will be among the
> first in line when the Church of Rome takes applications for its
> colony. If you think people who have a different view of society
>are
> morally inferior,
People is morally inferior because of their ACTIONS, not on their
views. If someone commits inmoral acts, of course is inferior.
That's all.
>whatever their religious world views, that is >your
> right and I hope you are able to find an ideal society to your
>liking
> along with the myraids of others who will be filling space colonies
> with their brands of like minded people.
> My space colony will be something like Burning Man
> (http://www.donaldedavis.com/PARTS/BMINTRO.html) before the
> harrassment by the BLM was commonplace and something like the
>Haight
> Ashbury idealistic movement when people were open to new ideas, new
> living patterns, new music and new states of consiousness.
Jesus! What kind of community are you going to found up there? A
Rastafari marihuana-smoking society? Or a Playboy fun-house in space?
"New states of consiousness" sound to me like a New Age manifesto.
What are you going to eat up there, colored crystals or high
vibrations?
>There will
> be no guns, not even for the cops, no snooping into our bedrooms,
> bladders, and brains, no bigotry and especially no imposition of
> restrictions based on religious values. Consenting adults can do
>what
> they wish among themselves without some athority figures deciding
>to
> try to make the private life of others their business.
Do you really think a colony could run in such a disorder?
No, you will need people that colaborate in peace, that follow
discipline, that have a common goal and the dream to form a new
home. They will look more like early pioneers rather than the people
living in a modern and decadent city.
> A strength of the space colony idea is that it offers hope to
>those
> who yearn for living according to their ideals, too often something
> being taken away by 'muddled majority rule' restrictions enforced
>by
> uniformed thugs with guns. This applies to liberals, John Birchers,
> nudists, religious fanatics Christian or not, and 'Dick and Jane'
> milktoast American ideal family groups. All deserve a chance to
>create
> societies to their liking in independent enviornments.
True. Let's see how long those expiremental societies survive in
Space. I am quite sure necessity will change them soon enough.
>All deserve to
> be left alone by others.
In Space? Yeah. You must be kidding.
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in ruling ranks of
>society
> who take an unhealthy interest in what consenting adults do among
>each
> other, what they read and what kind of intoxicants and intimacy
>they
> enjoy among themselves.
>They seek to wipe out such things that they do
> not understand and think should not exist.
They do understand. It is just they find it disgusting.
>They wish entire groups >of
> otherwise functional people would dissappear.
If you ask me, I wish the group of criminals, drug addicts and
irresponsable people just evaporate in the air. Well, that's just a
dream,
> When governments try to regulate the reproductive lives of people
> under their power, the results are often ugly. We have the case of
> Nazi Germany, which outlawed abortion as soon as they got in power,
> and generally disenfranchised women from the work force. America
> encouraged women to work, and this was one of the deciding factors
> in our victory in World War II. More recently, we have pre
>revolution
> Romania and present day China, one which monitored monthly cycles
>to
> register and force the completion of all pregnancies, the latter
>doing
> so to enforce abortions. Both are repungnant and contrary to common
> decency,
I agree with you in that point.
> if there can be said to be such a thing in the multicultural
> cacaphony that is the human Race.
> The idea that we have to compulsively abundantly breed is an
> ingrained product of ancient high death rate conditions,
Wrong!!! The problem is quite simple. If you stop reproducing you
are a dead duck. You are extinct. It's not necesary to form a tribe
by yourself, but just to allow live to continue living after you are
throw to garbage inside a coffin.
>today people
> are cared for so well compared to even 100 years ago that we have
>to
> ease up on the production rate in order to avoid having
>enviornmental
> conditions get out of hand in order to maintain decent standards of
> living for all these people. Women will try to limit the number of
> children they have as they become aware of better lives they can
>have
> by rising above third world standards of living.
That's idiotic. If you guys in the so called FIRST world stop having
children the only think that will happen is that the THIRD world
will replace you inside your country. That's so easy to see.
> Part of the very desire for Space Colonization is an excersize of
> the world view given us by science and philosophy that we can
>direct
> our own destiny as a species.
Space will be colonized by economics. Not by science or phylosophy.
That's the way history works.
> I can remember as a child, and I'm not quite old yet, a world
>with
> only half the population of the world of today. That is a
>terrifying
> thing to contemplete when you consider it took from the beginning
>of
> Humanity roughly up to a million years ago (by Human I mean someone
> with sufficent genetic compatability to modern people to have
healthy
> children with) to the early 1800's for the population to reach ONE
> BILLION.
Look. Too much statistics reading can be bad for your mental health.
>That number was added to our fragile Earth in the last 12
> years!!! How much can we ask of poor Gaiea? If there is a mass
> realization of this state of affairs in the industrialized workd it
> should be taken as a good sign. Even if the population declines to
>a > fraction of that of today that should be seen as only a smooth
> progress to an ideal population level.
You don't see the whole picture, eh? Is not the developed world the
one that has to stop reproducing fast. Is Africa, India and the
Sudest Asia. From there the population problem comes.
>The number of people really
> required to keep the Human race going isn't really large at all.
> It is suggested that the 'ignorant third world breeders' will
> ultimately take over the Earth because the industrialized world
>will
> die out.
That's what is happening right now. But the third world is not
ignorant at all. It knows what is doing.
>Let me repeat that only a replacement level at a level far
> less than today is really needed. If a few generations don't quite
> replace themselves it will mean a less crowded richer society that
> will be emulated by others made aware of why such places are so
> desirable. They created their reality for themselves and as people
> become informed and elevated above third world status they will
>also
> create better realities for themselves. Just as in Soviet Russia,
> efforts to keep mass media away from young people will be doomed to
> failure. Some day even Afghanistan will be filled with televisions
>and
> increasingly dissatisfied youth sick of Islamic restrictions on
>their
> lives.
But that time, if things follows like go now, both the people of
Europe and of the United States of today will be part of history.
They will only show in old movies. Don't tell me I did not warn you.
Well, I should not be concerned. After all I am an ignorant South
American that lives in the THIRD world. lol
Regards,
Omar Vega
# 8394 byxenophile2002@... on June 22, 2006, 8:07 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Remember when I said to relax, because it isn't like nobody has babies
anymore? I was asked if maybe I was overstating the case, and I
replied that I sure thought that SOMEBODY was, when I would read about
entire populations dissapearing in a single generation.
> Jesus!
I heard of Him. Long hair, always talking about peace and love. Wore
sandles. A liberal hippy-type.
> What kind of community are you going to found up there? A
> Rastafari marihuana-smoking society? Or a Playboy fun-house in
> space?
I suspect (and tell me if I'm wrong about this, Don) that in Don's
habitat I could eschew smooking, alcohol, any other intoxicants, and
live in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage for all my adult life, and
that would be just fine with the law enforcement, government, etc.
Of course, I could also drop acid on Monday and chew nutmeg on Tuesday
while trying to decide if I'd rather have sex with Sally or George
Wednesday, and THAT would be just fine with the law enforcement,
government, etc.
> "New states of consiousness" sound to me like a New Age manifesto.
> What are you going to eat up there, colored crystals or high
> vibrations?
With tissue ingeneering and meat printers, I think it might be venison
and wild duck (artificially produced of course) with truffles.
>> There will be no guns, not even for the cops, no snooping into our
>> bedrooms, bladders, and brains, no bigotry and especially no
I'm with you. But I don't think that you can guarantee "no bigotry,"
human beings being what they are. You can minimise it, but I doubt
you can eliminate it. And I would expect there to be that "special
locker" at police HQ that gets opened about once every decade or so
(except in the movies and on TV, where it happens all the time).
>> imposition of restrictions based on religious values. Consenting
>> adults can do what they wish among themselves without some athority
>> figures deciding to try to make the private life of others their
>> business.
> Do you really think a colony could run in such a disorder?
Who said anything about disorder? I should hope that Don's no-gun
cops would arrest me if I raped somebody, or if I tried to blow a hole
in the bulkhead, or if I stole a bicycle. If not, then yeah, Don's
habitat is screwed (and not in the pleasant way).
> No, you will need people that colaborate in peace, that follow
> discipline, that have a common goal and the dream to form a new
I agree. But you can have that without the Sex Police, the Drug
Police, and the Church Police.
> home. They will look more like early pioneers rather than the people
> living in a modern and decadent city.
Well, to some extent, yeah. Except that they will BE MODERN. They
will have TV and movies and telephone and Internet faster than the
broadest broadband of today, and material wealth more in keeping with
Tokyo 2006 or Honolulu 1997 than with Dodge City 1884.
>> A strength of the space colony idea is that it offers hope to those
>> who yearn for living according to their ideals, too often something
>> being taken away by 'muddled majority rule' restrictions enforced
>> by uniformed thugs with guns. This applies to liberals, John
>> Birchers, nudists, religious fanatics Christian or not, and 'Dick
>> and Jane' milktoast American ideal family groups. All deserve a
>> chance to create societies to their liking in independent
>> enviornments.
> True. Let's see how long those expiremental societies survive in
> Space. I am quite sure necessity will change them soon enough.
I have to agree with this. In as little as fifty years, neither the
"sexually pure" or "Haight Ashbury" habitats will look quite like they
did when they were founded.
>> All deserve to be left alone by others.
> In Space? Yeah. You must be kidding.
If not in Space, then where?
>> Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in ruling ranks of society
>> who take an unhealthy interest in what consenting adults do among
>> each other, what they read and what kind of intoxicants and
>> intimacy they enjoy among themselves. They seek to wipe out such
>> things that they do not understand and think should not exist.
> They do understand. It is just they find it disgusting.
Well, that's where we differ. I think that I should have a better to
make you not do something than "that's disgusting." Even if I have
the power, I should have a better reason to use it than "disgusting."
>> They wish entire groups of otherwise functional people would
>> dissappear.
> If you ask me, I wish the group of criminals, drug addicts and
> irresponsable people just evaporate in the air. Well, that's just a
> dream,
ALL the irresponsible people just evaporate in the air? Talk about an
underpopulated world!
>> The idea that we have to compulsively abundantly breed is an
>> ingrained product of ancient high death rate conditions,
> Wrong!!! The problem is quite simple. If you stop reproducing you
> are a dead duck. You are extinct.
See, this is what I mean. Nobody said anything about "stop
reproducing," but just about not breeding ourselves into abject
poverty. Certainly, if we just stop reproducing, we go extinct. But
nobody here is advocating that. You are arguing against a point which
has not been put forward.
And in the same vein:
> That's idiotic. If you guys in the so called FIRST world stop having
> children the only think that will happen is that the THIRD world
> will replace you inside your country. That's so easy to see.
It is indeed easy to see that if "you guys" stop having children, "you
guys" will go extinct when whichever of "you guys" is currently the
youngest finally dies of old age. But nobody is suggesting that "you
guys in the so called FIRST world stop having children." Again, you
are doing a brillient job of refuting an argument which has not been made.
There's more of this 'nobody's having babies' weirdness later on, but
why bother?
# 8395 bydinmont2@... on June 22, 2006, 1:50 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
The way I see it, based on observation of history, when people move
into space they will establish societies based on their own views.
course. Those with a high birthrate and high moral values are going to
grow and expand. Those that go the other way won't last long not
because they are weak and will be conquered but because they will not
be able to replace their own number or expand. Ironic that for a world
created by science, nature will be the executioner.
# 8396 bydondavis@... on June 22, 2006, 3:42 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
> habitat I could eschew smooking, alcohol, any other intoxicants, and
> live in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage for all my adult life, and
> that would be just fine with the law enforcement, government, etc.
Of course members of a free society such as my space colony society
have the right to decide to avoid any kind of intoxicant and pleasure
they wish! No, the authority figures won't test people to make sure
they are imbibing as they think they should!
-snip- and THAT would be just fine with the law enforcement,
> government, etc.
Laws would be written with deliberately limited scope to cover
specific needs, not dealing with private behavour. For every new law
introduced another older law must be removed to avoid clutter.
> > "New states of consiousness" sound to me like a New Age manifesto.
> > What are you going to eat up there, colored crystals or high
> > vibrations?
You never know what people will come up with. By then most
psychedelic drugs as we know them may well be replaced for
consiousness exploration uses by computer neural interfaces tapping
into the 'religious center of the brain' that is now accessed by
meditative and ethnobotanical means.
> I'm with you. But I don't think that you can guarantee "no bigotry,"
Of course, but there would be no laws codifying bigotry so far as is
possible.
>
> Who said anything about disorder? I should hope that Don's no-gun
> cops would arrest me if I raped somebody, or if I tried to blow a hole
> in the bulkhead, or if I stole a bicycle.
Crimes involving violence would be considered very serious. Almost as
serious as trying to blow a hole in the colony. People who threatened
the whole would have to be changed forcibly or executed, unless there
was a 'prison colony' they sent such folks to. There may be less room
for the lengthly legal contests as we see in America and as such could
differ in some details from the stereotyped liberal ideals, especially
in death penalty related issues.
If not, then yeah, Don's
> habitat is screwed (and not in the pleasant way).
Whatever works!
>
> > Wrong!!! The problem is quite simple. If you stop reproducing you
> > are a dead duck. You are extinct.
>
> See, this is what I mean. Nobody said anything about "stop
> reproducing," but just about not breeding ourselves into abject
> poverty. Certainly, if we just stop reproducing, we go extinct.
There is a lack of perspective related to discussions of these
issues. When birth rates decline from our present 'J curve turning
into a spike' anomaly people worry thet we are in danger of dwindling
to nothing! It is highly unlikely even the richest societies will stop
reproducing entirely, the world is simply being changed by consensus
into one with less increase in crowding and thus more affluent than it
would have been.
Similar thinking is applied when people bring up gay people with
alarm as if they were a threat, often saying 'If everyone was that way
Humanity would die off! The relative demographics of the group in
question have remained fairly steady over the years, several percent,
concentrations in 'rainbow flag flying' cities being due to migration
rather than per capita population increase. 'Gay Marriage' is often
treated like a threat to marriage as a whole, as if the merits of both
were some kind of closed system where the validation of one is somehow
at the expense of the other. Both have their respective merits and are
not mutually exclusive to the other, the comparitively small number of
such unions can hardly be shown to eclipse or invalidate the meaning
of billions of marriages! Yet it is obsessed upon by opportunists and
rhetorically enlarged to the status of a world crisis.
Incidently, gays can be thought of as the sociological 'canaries in
the cage' unwittingly acting as the birds carried deep underground
into mines. Just as the canaries are first to succumb to the poisen in
the air warning miners to evaculate, gay people are generally the
first to be persecuted by political and religious demagogues then they
seek to spread the noxious fumes of oppression around them.
>
> > That's idiotic. If you guys in the so called FIRST world stop having
> > children the only think that will happen is that the THIRD world
> > will replace you inside your country. That's so easy to see.
The process of the information age reaching every corner of the world
is well underway, influencing desired birth rates. What imformed
society wants to see a world covered with Calcuttas over most of the
habitable surface? The saturation of media and the reduction of the
influence of Islamic theocracies as the outcome of the ongoing war
between radical Islam and the West will contribute to marginalizing
societies which outlaw birth control.
The smaller the fraction of the human race reproducing blindly without
regard to quality of life issues the longer the rest of the world will
have to establish a robust Space Migration process.
If the world suceeds in stabalizing its population at a billion or
tweo people, it will be more likely to become for future space faring
generations a vacation destination rather than a grim example of what
horrible fates they avoided.
Don
# 8397 byoevega@... on June 22, 2006, 4:46 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hi Don,
Space colonies won't be a carbon copy of today's advanced countries
societies, because factors like these:
(1) Numbers will be small. We are talking in terms of thousands of
pioneers, perhaps 100.000 as much for the first couple of centuries.
We are not thinking in billion-size societies of today which can
survive will all kind of wild behavoirs because there are enough
resources to waste.
(2) Pioneers won't be choseen at random. There will be a very strict
selection process in place. I guess it is easy to enter the M.I.T
or to the executive level of a big company today rather than put a
foot in a Space colony.
(3) Space colonies will avoid people with behavoir that will produce
problems. Criminals, paranoids, violent or abusive people will be
avoided, because they are potential source of trouble. Is very
likely the people they finally chose will be quite different from
the average fellow of our societies.
(4) Space settlements will be always at the edge of disaster, and
they will be managed like private companies, so they will want to
have the best human resources available.
That kind of society will be, by force, very different from today's
world.
Omar
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Don Davis"
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
> wrote:
>
> > I suspect (and tell me if I'm wrong about this, Don) that in
Don's
> > habitat I could eschew smooking, alcohol, any other intoxicants,
and
> > live in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage for all my adult
life, and
> > that would be just fine with the law enforcement, government,
etc.
>
> Of course members of a free society such as my space colony
society
> have the right to decide to avoid any kind of intoxicant and
pleasure
> they wish! No, the authority figures won't test people to make sure
> they are imbibing as they think they should!
>
> -snip- and THAT would be just fine with the law enforcement,
> > government, etc.
>
> Laws would be written with deliberately limited scope to cover
> specific needs, not dealing with private behavour. For every new
law
> introduced another older law must be removed to avoid clutter.
>
> > > "New states of consiousness" sound to me like a New Age
manifesto.
> > > What are you going to eat up there, colored crystals or high
> > > vibrations?
>
> You never know what people will come up with. By then most
> psychedelic drugs as we know them may well be replaced for
> consiousness exploration uses by computer neural interfaces tapping
> into the 'religious center of the brain' that is now accessed by
> meditative and ethnobotanical means.
>
> > I'm with you. But I don't think that you can guarantee "no
bigotry,"
>
> Of course, but there would be no laws codifying bigotry so far
as is
> possible.
>
> > Who said anything about disorder? I should hope that Don's no-
gun
> > cops would arrest me if I raped somebody, or if I tried to blow
a hole
> > in the bulkhead, or if I stole a bicycle.
>
> Crimes involving violence would be considered very serious.
Almost as
> serious as trying to blow a hole in the colony. People who
threatened
> the whole would have to be changed forcibly or executed, unless
there
> was a 'prison colony' they sent such folks to. There may be less
room
> for the lengthly legal contests as we see in America and as such
could
> differ in some details from the stereotyped liberal ideals,
especially
> in death penalty related issues.
>
> If not, then yeah, Don's
> > habitat is screwed (and not in the pleasant way).
>
> Whatever works!
>
> > > Wrong!!! The problem is quite simple. If you stop reproducing
you
> > > are a dead duck. You are extinct.
> >
> > See, this is what I mean. Nobody said anything about "stop
> > reproducing," but just about not breeding ourselves into abject
> > poverty. Certainly, if we just stop reproducing, we go extinct.
>
> There is a lack of perspective related to discussions of these
> issues. When birth rates decline from our present 'J curve turning
> into a spike' anomaly people worry thet we are in danger of
dwindling
> to nothing! It is highly unlikely even the richest societies will
stop
> reproducing entirely, the world is simply being changed by
consensus
> into one with less increase in crowding and thus more affluent
than it
> would have been.
> Similar thinking is applied when people bring up gay people with
> alarm as if they were a threat, often saying 'If everyone was that
way
> Humanity would die off! The relative demographics of the group in
> question have remained fairly steady over the years, several
percent,
> concentrations in 'rainbow flag flying' cities being due to
migration
> rather than per capita population increase. 'Gay Marriage' is often
> treated like a threat to marriage as a whole, as if the merits of
both
> were some kind of closed system where the validation of one is
somehow
> at the expense of the other. Both have their respective merits and
are
> not mutually exclusive to the other, the comparitively small
number of
> such unions can hardly be shown to eclipse or invalidate the
meaning
> of billions of marriages! Yet it is obsessed upon by opportunists
and
> rhetorically enlarged to the status of a world crisis.
> Incidently, gays can be thought of as the
sociological 'canaries in
> the cage' unwittingly acting as the birds carried deep underground
> into mines. Just as the canaries are first to succumb to the
poisen in
> the air warning miners to evaculate, gay people are generally the
> first to be persecuted by political and religious demagogues then
they
> seek to spread the noxious fumes of oppression around them.
>
> > > That's idiotic. If you guys in the so called FIRST world stop
having
> > > children the only think that will happen is that the THIRD
world
> > > will replace you inside your country. That's so easy to see.
>
> The process of the information age reaching every corner of the
world
> is well underway, influencing desired birth rates. What imformed
> society wants to see a world covered with Calcuttas over most of
the
> habitable surface? The saturation of media and the reduction of the
> influence of Islamic theocracies as the outcome of the ongoing war
> between radical Islam and the West will contribute to marginalizing
> societies which outlaw birth control.
> The smaller the fraction of the human race reproducing blindly
without
> regard to quality of life issues the longer the rest of the world
will
> have to establish a robust Space Migration process.
> If the world suceeds in stabalizing its population at a billion
or
> tweo people, it will be more likely to become for future space
faring
> generations a vacation destination rather than a grim example of
what
# 8398 bytango_dancer@... on June 22, 2006, 5:16 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:
>
> Hi Don,
>
> I believe you start from the wrong axioms.
> Space colonies won't be a carbon copy of today's advanced countries
> societies, because factors like these:
>
> (1) Numbers will be small. We are talking in terms of thousands of
> pioneers, perhaps 100.000 as much for the first couple of centuries.
> We are not thinking in billion-size societies of today which can
> survive will all kind of wild behavoirs because there are enough
> resources to waste.
>
> (2) Pioneers won't be choseen at random. There will be a very strict
> selection process in place. I guess it is easy to enter the M.I.T
> or to the executive level of a big company today rather than put a
> foot in a Space colony.
>
> (3) Space colonies will avoid people with behavoir that will produce
> problems. Criminals, paranoids, violent or abusive people will be
> avoided, because they are potential source of trouble. Is very
> likely the people they finally chose will be quite different from
> the average fellow of our societies.
>
> (4) Space settlements will be always at the edge of disaster, and
> they will be managed like private companies, so they will want to
> have the best human resources available.
>
> That kind of society will be, by force, very different from today's
> world.
>
> Omar
Eugenics, afterall these people will be the ones who are populating
the Habitat with their children. So what you have here is manmade
guidance of population characteristics.
TangoMan
# 8399 bydehammer@... on June 22, 2006, 7:27 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
i believe it will likely depend on where the money comes from. if it
comes from tax dollars, the goverment will set up some agency that
will likely have to follow a set of rules, be staffed by way too few
people, be subject to large grafts and will eventually sent out a
group that is largely very much like society.
people hired for qualifications they deam best, most likely from
their own corporations, with an eye to getting as much money out of
them as possible.
the third and potentially the scariest of all (i can think of at this
time) is the coop. a group of people get the money together, hire
those with qualifications they dont have, and pay a contractor who
may not have their best interest at heart. once its finished, they
would have put all of their money in, have thrown the dice, and take
what is coming in the future. if its not up to par, by the time they
know this, it would be too late for them to do anything to fix it, as
they have no money left, and the contractor might not be alive any
more.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> Hi Don,
>
> I believe you start from the wrong axioms.
> Space colonies won't be a carbon copy of today's advanced countries
> societies, because factors like these:
>
> (1) Numbers will be small. We are talking in terms of thousands of
> pioneers, perhaps 100.000 as much for the first couple of
centuries.
> We are not thinking in billion-size societies of today which can
> survive will all kind of wild behavoirs because there are enough
> resources to waste.
>
> (2) Pioneers won't be choseen at random. There will be a very
strict
> selection process in place. I guess it is easy to enter the M.I.T
> or to the executive level of a big company today rather than put a
> foot in a Space colony.
>
> (3) Space colonies will avoid people with behavoir that will
produce
# 8400 bydougmay@... on June 22, 2006, 7:53 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Again, you say those with high birth rates will grow and expand, but
growth and expansion in space will be difficult. The space
settlements that expand the most will have to keep building more
multi-billion dollar colonies over and over. This is fine as long as
they are guaranteed a financial return from their colony. But what if
the new colony can't generate a profit? what if it refuses to pay
it's mother colony back? Planting a new settlement in space will not
be as easy as building a new apartment complex in the suburbs.
Societies that rely on constantly breeding and building will end up
bankrupting themselves, and eventually will lack the resources to
keep their colonies going. On Earth, that means poverty. In space, it
means extinction.
On Jun 22, 2006, at 8:50 AM, terrierkeeper wrote:
# 8401 bylevi1_ca@... on June 22, 2006, 11:34 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Douglas May
>
> Again, you say those with high birth rates will grow and expand,
but
> growth and expansion in space will be difficult. The space
> settlements that expand the most will have to keep building more
> multi-billion dollar colonies over and over. This is fine as long
as
> they are guaranteed a financial return from their colony. But what
if
> the new colony can't generate a profit? what if it refuses to pay
> it's mother colony back? Planting a new settlement in space will
not
> be as easy as building a new apartment complex in the suburbs.
> Societies that rely on constantly breeding and building will end
up
> bankrupting themselves, and eventually will lack the resources to
> keep their colonies going. On Earth, that means poverty. In space,
it
> means extinction.
>
> doug
>
perhaps it will be that strangers pay up front (big mortgage) or you
do it for family - most people will go out on a limb for
chuildren/grandchildren and so on - how many people help their
children in life knowing that they may not get a financial return
# 8402 byspider_boris@... on June 23, 2006, 1:50 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
All this talk about what sort of societies will be
around when space colonization takes off seem kind of
like ancient fish discussing what sort of creatures
would evolve from the fish that crawled out of the
oceans.
dismantling Ceres and turning it into a bunch of
Island 3 colonies would yield something like 300 to
500 times the surface area of the earth. Although we
might be able to predict what the very first colonies
would be like in a general way (ie small), once
humanity gets around to building Island 3s and
dismantling the largest asteroids, there is no way
we'll be able to predict the way that a trillion
people on a million space colonies will order their
societies. Hell, we won't be able to predict how the
first 100 small colonies (by small I mean less than 10
thousand people) will order their societies.
If someone is writing a story about life in a space
colony, then the politics and culture of that colony
would be entirely up to the author's imagination.
There would only be a few things that every colony
would have to have - all of them practical
considerations dictated by the environment. They
would have to keep their air inside. They'd have to
maintain their radiation shielding. They'd have to
have some sort of an ecosystem to recycle air, water,
and food. They'd need resupply to cover the
inevitable losses. They'd need to protect themselves
from other people. They'd have to have some way of
dealing with all the other stuff in orbit to prevent
collisions (whether with another colony or with an
asteroid or comet). They would have to have a supply
of energy, either solar power or nuclear. And there
would likely be trade and tourism between the colonies
and earth.
And all the while, science and engineering would keep
advancing, bringing with them new technologies that
change the societies, sometimes rapidly. Just look at
how the internet has changed the world over the last
ten to fifteen years, or how the automobile changed
western society in the last century.
Ed Minchau
http://robot_guy.blogspot.com
--- victoriatangoman wrote:
# 8403 bydehammer@... on June 23, 2006, 6 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "levi1_ca" wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Douglas May
> wrote:
> >
> > Again, you say those with high birth rates will grow and expand,
> but
> > growth and expansion in space will be difficult. The space
> > settlements that expand the most will have to keep building more
> > multi-billion dollar colonies over and over. This is fine as long
> as
> > they are guaranteed a financial return from their colony. But
what
> if
> > the new colony can't generate a profit? what if it refuses to
pay
> > it's mother colony back? Planting a new settlement in space will
> not
> > be as easy as building a new apartment complex in the suburbs.
> > Societies that rely on constantly breeding and building will end
> up
> > bankrupting themselves, and eventually will lack the resources
to
> > keep their colonies going. On Earth, that means poverty. In
space,
> it
> > means extinction.
> >
> > doug
> >
> perhaps it will be that strangers pay up front (big mortgage) or
you
> do it for family - most people will go out on a limb for
> chuildren/grandchildren and so on - how many people help their
> children in life knowing that they may not get a financial return
>
that would mean that they entire group would have to come up with the
money before hand to expand. if they are busy paying for their
childrens food, they are not going to have the money for a new
settlement.
# 8404 bydante_feditech@... on June 23, 2006, 9:34 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Robert
> that would mean that they entire group would have to come up with the
> money before hand to expand. if they are busy paying for their
> childrens food, they are not going to have the money for a new
> settlement.
million-dollar homes comes up with the money all by himself? Most nations
today run permanantly in the red. I see no reason why colonies couldn't do
the same.
John
# 8405 byoevega@... on June 23, 2006, 10:28 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> that would mean that they entire group would have to come up with
the
> money before hand to expand. if they are busy paying for their
> childrens food, they are not going to have the money for a new
> settlement.
>
that's it. No, space settlements will be more like cities, designed to
grow, and to divide in two when necesary.
That whay it won't be as expensive as you think.
Omar
# 8406 bydehammer@... on June 23, 2006, 11:25 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> Thats what banks are for. What? You think a developer building a
thousand
> million-dollar homes comes up with the money all by himself? Most
nations
> today run permanantly in the red. I see no reason why colonies
couldn't do
> the same.
>
> John
history, and such, then determine wheither or not the homes are
likely going to sell, then will arrange for him to have the money for
a few of the houses at a time.
building a station cant be done one house at a time, it all or
nothing. if the buyers decided after they are there, that they are
not going to pay, who is going to be able to recover the cost of the
station. your talking about building an entire city, with factories,
stores, farmes, schools, homes and everything else all at once. what
factories are they to put in, how will it pay for itself. how big
are the schools. what kind of fads do they plan for. these are a few
questions that will have to be figured out before anyone would put up
the money for the station. you dont just go to a banker and say, "my
house cant handle all the kids anymore, i want to get a loan for
their starter house."
your also talking about something that will cost more than the gnp
for a decade for many countries.
# 8407 bydehammer@... on June 23, 2006, 11:27 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ed Minchau
>
> All this talk about what sort of societies will be
> around when space colonization takes off seem kind of
> like ancient fish discussing what sort of creatures
> would evolve from the fish that crawled out of the
> oceans.
>
> I think it was Al Globus who calculated that
> dismantling Ceres and turning it into a bunch of
> Island 3 colonies would yield something like 300 to
> 500 times the surface area of the earth. Although we
> might be able to predict what the very first colonies
> would be like in a general way (ie small), once
> humanity gets around to building Island 3s and
> dismantling the largest asteroids, there is no way
> we'll be able to predict the way that a trillion
> people on a million space colonies will order their
> societies. Hell, we won't be able to predict how the
> first 100 small colonies (by small I mean less than 10
> thousand people) will order their societies.
Ceres, during the population of the human race will double 5 to 10
times. but the time they get it turned to to stations, it would be
overcrowded already.
# 8408 bydehammer@... on June 23, 2006, 11:41 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> > that would mean that they entire group would have to come up with
> the
> > money before hand to expand. if they are busy paying for their
> > childrens food, they are not going to have the money for a new
> > settlement.
> >
> You assume space settlements are like ships: they are build once
and
> that's it. No, space settlements will be more like cities, designed
to
> grow, and to divide in two when necessary.
>
> That whay it won't be as expensive as you think.
>
> Omar
>
rings added, or spheres added to a structure. the problems with this
are these:
1)if the station has to be moved for any reason, the bigger it is the
bigger the risk of a catastrophic.
2)rings would cause major stress if they are orbiting a little off
true. if one began to change its spin characteristics, it could
easily destroy the entire structure
i think it would be more likely that there would be clusters of
smaller stations, perhaps even losely connected in someway that
allowed wobbles and such to be minimized, or dampped out.
# 8409 bydougmay@... on June 24, 2006, 12:14 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I certainly hope that building space colonies will someday be
inexpensive, otherwise I can't go. But I don't see that day coming
for several hundred years, though I could certainly be wrong.
Governments can only operate in the red as long as they keep making
the minimum payments. Once they miss a payment, they are cut off with
disastrous consequences. Would a bank be able to repossess a space
station that misses its payment? Who would enforce it? The Space
Marines?
cities, requiring some kind of lucrative export in order for the
settlers to raise the funds just to maintain their settlement, much
less expand it or build new ones. None of the vital equipment and
material that is essential for life will last forever. It will have
to be maintained, upgraded, and even replaced. Go downtown and look
at a fifty year old office building and compare it to a brand shiny
new one. Stuff just degrades over time, and in a society with 100,000
people or less, there is not much economy of scale, so a large
portion of the tribe will have to devote time and energy to keeping
their rusty bucket afloat.
I am absolutely certain that colonies will divide, expand, and
diverge. Eventually we will make it to the Oort cloud and maybe, in
some 100,000 years or so to another star system. However I am
convinced that using space as elbow room, that is using it as a place
for excess population growth, will be perilous. The survival rate
among colonies will be less than 100%, and the more reckless and
impatient we are are putting new colonies out there, the greater risk
each faces of impending disaster. Hasty workmanship should not be
tolerated in Space settlement construction.
Don't forget Fermi's paradox: If rapid expansion in space and high
birth rates are an advantage, then where are the aliens? Either we're
the only ones, or the first ones, or the existing alien civilizations
are not expanding this fast. Millions of potentially life sustaining
stars exist in the Milky Way that are billions of years older then
Earth. Even if just 1 of those stars developed a civilization that
continued to expand at the rate we do, the Galaxy would have been
full millions of years ago. They could have just missed our star. Or
we could be the only ones. Or they could have chosen a much slower
expansion rate. Or perhaps they continued with high expansion rates
and "overgrazed" themselves to death. I suppose it's even possible
that they're hiding in Roswell, New Mexico.
Another possible approach that is kind of eerie and filled with
problems of its own is to live "forever". Put an end to reproduction,
and use future medical technology to live forever. Augment the brains
so that the people's memory can accommodate centuries of experience.
Theoretically, you would have wiser people and would not have to
train new people. Deaths by accident and such could be replaced by
cloning. Perhaps you could even link everyone's memory wirelessly so
that everyone would know everything equally well. Creepy. Ugh!
Doug
On Jun 23, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Omar E. Vega wrote:
# 8410 byxenophile2002@... on June 26, 2006, 3:17 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers, Douglas May wrote:
> problems of its own is to live "forever".
Well, we all know that I'm a big fan of making death optional. Not
sure what's so terribly "eerie" about that.
> Put an end to reproduction,
Some on this group seem to think that that's already happened. @_@
> and use future medical technology to live forever. Augment the
> brains so that the people's memory can accommodate centuries of
> experience.
And while we're at it, give us the numbers-crunching ability of the
latest computers (quantum computers?).
> Theoretically, you would have wiser people and would not have to
> train new people.
Or perhaps training could be very fast if...
> Deaths by accident and such could be replaced by cloning.
Or zygote reproduction. No reason it HAS to be cloning.
But then, if we could back up our minds, we could simply resurrect
those killed by accident. Death would be no longer a tragedy, but
instead a nuisance.
> Perhaps you could even link everyone's memory wirelessly so that
> everyone would know everything equally well. Creepy. Ugh!
Well, that would allow quick training, wouldn't it?
# 8411 bymygreatpc@... on June 26, 2006, 7:10 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Xenophile wrote:
--- In spacesettlers, Douglas May wrote:
>> everyone would know everything equally well. Creepy. Ugh!
>Well, that would allow quick training, wouldn't it?
Now why am I reminded of the Borg from Startrek? Socialistic sharing of thoughts may have unexpected consequences...
Michael P.
# 8412 bydehammer@... on June 26, 2006, 11:13 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Michael Persohn-Costa
wrote:
>
> Xenophile wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers, Douglas May wrote:
>
> >>Perhaps you could even link everyone's memory wirelessly so that
> >> everyone would know everything equally well. Creepy. Ugh!
>
> >Well, that would allow quick training, wouldn't it?
>
> Now why am I reminded of the Borg from Startrek? Socialistic
sharing of thoughts may have unexpected consequences...
>
> Michael P.
>
# 8413 bylevi1_ca@... on June 27, 2006, 1:35 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Michael Persohn-Costa
> wrote:
> >
> > Xenophile wrote:
> > --- In spacesettlers, Douglas May wrote:
> >
> > >>Perhaps you could even link everyone's memory wirelessly so
that
> > >> everyone would know everything equally well. Creepy. Ugh!
> >
> > >Well, that would allow quick training, wouldn't it?
> >
> > Now why am I reminded of the Borg from Startrek? Socialistic
> sharing of thoughts may have unexpected consequences...
> >
> > Michael P.
> >
> resistance is futile
>
sounds like a nightmare - women would either smile a lot when you
are around or slap your face every few seconds - or a combination
thereof - possible extreme nightmare.
# 8414 byxenophile2002@... on June 27, 2006, 4 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers, "levi1_ca" wrote:
>> --- In spacesettlers, Michael Persohn-Costa wrote:
>>> Now why am I reminded of the Borg from Startrek? Socialistic
>>> sharing of thoughts may have unexpected consequences...
>>>
>>> Michael P.
>> resistance is futile
> sounds like a nightmare - women would either smile a lot when you
> are around or slap your face every few seconds - or a combination
> thereof - possible extreme nightmare.
Nah. They'd blush, because we guys would know all THEIR dirty little
thoughts. It's easier to be offended when you can pretend to
innocence yourself.
# 8415 byxenophile2002@... on June 27, 2006, 3:56 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers, Michael Persohn-Costa wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers, Douglas May wrote:
>>>Perhaps you could even link everyone's memory wirelessly so that
>>> everyone would know everything equally well. Creepy. Ugh!
>>Well, that would allow quick training, wouldn't it?
> Now why am I reminded of the Borg from Startrek? Socialistic sharing
> of thoughts may have unexpected consequences...
The Borg are part of the evil alien conspiracy to corrupt Star Trek.
Right, Mike?
# 8416 bymikecombs@... on June 27, 2006, 4:18 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Xenophile
> Right, Mike?
Hah!
It sometimes surprises me how popular that article is. I certainly
wouldn't have considered it one of my better works, and would have
considered it a bit too idiosyncratic to be of much interest to many
others. But I still get requests to post that to other sites, or
reprint in newsletters.
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 8417 bydehammer@... on June 27, 2006, 5:15 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
>
> --- In spacesettlers, Michael Persohn-Costa wrote:
>
> > Xenophile wrote:
>
> > --- In spacesettlers, Douglas May wrote:
>
> >>>Perhaps you could even link everyone's memory wirelessly so that
> >>> everyone would know everything equally well. Creepy. Ugh!
>
> >>Well, that would allow quick training, wouldn't it?
>
> > Now why am I reminded of the Borg from Startrek? Socialistic
sharing
> > of thoughts may have unexpected consequences...
>
> The Borg are part of the evil alien conspiracy to corrupt Star
Trek.
> Right, Mike?
>
and spreading it thoughout the universe.
# 8418 byme@... on June 27, 2006, 5:42 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
First time poster, long time lurker....
and the Borg, and yet seem both more interesting and more pertinent to
Space Settlers. He's written several in the arc of post-human civil
wars between the Shapers (genetic engineers) and the Mechanists
(cyborg)... and neither of those require alien life from beyond. He's
also covered the Hive community mind in a story or two.
I think in reality, the Internet has ushered in a better forecaster of
pop culture: You get a certain amount of monoculture mainstreaming of
resonance... but you also get more diverse customized niches to choose from.
Lack of secrecy WILL become more the norm... Just as picture phones
permeate today's culture, people will want more pervasiveness of devices
to act as their witness to their experiences. Obviously, the flip side
is that they'll also want more control over the Truth, because even the
Truth should be guarded against abuse by wrongful exploitation. So
technology will find its ways... both to be ever present when called
upon, proving events we experience... and to offer limited
confidentiality... or is that too much like expecting Library PCs not to
allow keylogging malware?
- 7#!$+/
Twisty
# 8419 bymikecombs@... on June 27, 2006, 6:08 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert
> >
> > The Borg are part of the evil alien conspiracy to corrupt Star
> Trek.
> > Right, Mike?
>
> its not corruption from their point of view, its attaining
> perfection and spreading it thoughout the universe.
He was making reference to an article I wrote here:
http://members.aol.com/howiecombs/ihavseen.htm
I had expressed the opinion that Star Trek had ill-served the cause of
transhumanism by implying that an obvious outcome of putting chips into
our brains would be that we'd all turn into pasty zombies flying around
in inelegantly-shaped ships.
Regards,
Mike Combs