Hi Guys,

I realize there has been an awful lot of fur flying over Eugenics (which really does mean: "The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding" - I looked it up) lately, and I have seen the proposition advanced that unrestricted and unlimited breeding is a basic human right. With all due respect, I must point out that this is impractical. Given the following three Axioms (they may not, in fact, be axiomatic; but they did seem reasonable places to start my reasoning from):

The resources available within a single habitat are finite (by which, I mean the living space, food, fresh water, air, and other life support consumables - certainly another habitat may always be built... but please see my caveat 'within a single habitat'. Habitats are expensive, and not necessarily trivial to produce, nor free to colonization by any who wander up wanting space.)

The technology available for creating new resources, or producing existing resources more efficiently, are finite within reasonable time scales (by which I mean, a miracle hydroponic technique which will produce ten times as much food three years from now doesn't help with today's factor of ten shortfall; a problem in the near term must be solved with only the resources available in the near term)

And finally, (and this IS an actual, honest to goodness (tm) Axiom) that any free breeding population will expand to exceed its available resources (basic driving force behind natural selection, that. I may have been sloppy in my phraseology though.)

It seems reasonable to conclude that population control will be a vitally important issue in any habitat, especially when the limits of the life support system are being reached. So, what measures would be rational, with regards to limiting the population? Can it be done without continuous governmental intrusion? Would any such measures be Eugenics? How could abuses be discouraged? What about people who defy the policy, and their children?
I don't mean to start up the whole Fascist Blood-slinging feud again, but it has surprised me that nobody has approached the issue of breeding from the rather obvious (and I hope relevant) angle of population control and life support stresses. In the past, this issue has been hand-waved away under the presumption that 'Oh, the people living there will sort it all out, I guess'; but eventually we may run into the limits which constrain us here on Terra....
Just my two cents - anyone else have a take on this?

I don't think it's a big problem, because as long as the fact about the
limits is communicated upfront from the get-go to any new settlers, the people
themselves will decided how to respond to that. It dosen't take government to
deal with that. It take free-flowing price to send signs to the market that the
habital is becoming crowded. Even the market is changing in NYC under the
sight as stock market, the last major industry, is disappearing into cyberspace,
reducing the need for large office space which is forcing many owners to
change their office building into apartments and condos.

Botton line, we don't need governments, we need visionary businessmen who can
look at problem and see gold for which they may earn by offering solutions.

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com

The more you love, the more you can love-and the more intensely you love.
Nor is there any limit on how many you can love.
If a person had time enough, he could love all of the majority who are decent
and just.
-Robert A. Heinlein (Time Enough For Love)

http://BringThemHomeNow.org/

Giovanni,

I really do not consider resource limitation to be
an issue at all. One of the most attractive parts of
the island colonies are their modular approach. When
population demands more, just add more. This could
come in terms of adding another torus for agriculture
production or another habitat for existing
populations.

The raw materials in space are mind boggling and do
not quite equate to Earth mode of thinking. Between
the moon and near earth asteroids, there is plenty of
metals to be had for construction and regolith for
shielding. As we expand outwards, we'll eventually
hit upon the asteroid belt which should keep us
supplied at least through the next millineum.

Due to all of these issues, I do not believe
population control will be an issue. In fact, I would
think a boom in population as usually happens during a
period of expansion to occur.

Ryan Z

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Giovanni"
> Hi Guys,
>
> The resources available within a single habitat are finite (by
which, . . .

>

> The technology available for creating new resources, or
producing existing resources more efficiently, are finite within
reasonable time scales . . .

>

> And finally, (and this IS an actual, honest to goodness (tm)
Axiom) that any free breeding population will expand to exceed its
available resources (basic driving force behind natural selection,
that. I may have been sloppy in my phraseology though.)
> It seems reasonable to conclude that population control will
be a vitally important issue in any habitat, especially when the
limits of the life support system are being reached. So, what
measures would be rational, with regards to limiting the
population? Can it be done without continuous governmental
intrusion? Would any such measures be Eugenics? How could abuses
be discouraged? What about people who defy the policy, and their
children?

Hi. It's nice to hear a new voice. Here's my take on your axioms and
argument.

I pretty much agree with axiom 1. The Habitat will be designed with
a maximum limit to the life support it can carry. This will have
different implications for the different sizes of Habitat. An Island
one, with a population limit of 10,000 may be filled up within a
year if passenger shuttles departing from Earth are launched
frequently. I'd say that they probably would allow for some growth
over time, so they wouldn't fill it up to the max immediately. But
growth would be limited and some population control measures would
be necessary. It may be that the population would be temporary
workers on assignment for 5 years and then return to Earth.

At the other extreme, an Island 3, with a population limit of
10,000,000 will take a long time to fill up. Run some numbers for
yourself. Even once the airlocks are opened there will be much
interior work to be done. Housing, office, hospitals, roads, etc
will be continually built as the population grows. Keep in mind that
the atmosphere and other life support features will probably be
fully established before airlock openning.

The interior construction work will require different skill sets and
robots than the equipment and skills needed to fabricate the
pressure shell and establish the biocylinder, so if the population
planning models call for another Habitat in X years time, this can
be planned for and built while the population grows.

Your second axiom is also true but too narrowly defined. ISTM that
you're looking within the Habitat as the arena in which the
technology must be applied to overcome the problem. If more CO2 in a
plant growing environment will yield higher biomass output, then
technology can try to find a way to replicate the process without
CO2, or we can just process some NEO Methane Ice and pump it into
the plant growing pod and we haven't robbed the existing biotorus of
its stock of CO2.

Your third axiom also rings true but I don't see it as a problem
because new Habitats can be built.

I'm in agreement with your position only if the citizen's of the
first Habitat's are there on temporary assignments. Then there'll be
little need to expand unless it's warranted by the export economy.
There could be room for 8000 workers and 2000 children. The workers
would be selected for small family size and births would be planned
for, but after a period the workers would go back to Earth and new
singles and couples would go up.

If, OTOH, we're talking about permanent settlers, then I think
there'll be different dynamics at work. You ever wonder why so many
people are interested in economic growth statistics. They're a good
indicator of economic prosperity and wealth. The growth comes from
increased productivity, increased demand and population growth. As
more and more people live in orbit, the orbital domestic economy
will grow and more industries will be established and wholly
supported by the orbital citizens. This'll result in the decreased
influence of the initial export industries but also allow for the
creation of once marginal export enterprises into operational
enterprises because of increased capital, labor, technology and
market demand in orbit.

On Earth, as you've undoubtedly noticed, there are complicating
factors that are assoicated with economic growth. In orbit, that
growth and prosperity will have other issues to deal with but lack
of space and overcrowding will probably not be significant.

> I don't mean to start up the whole Fascist Blood-slinging feud
again, but it has surprised me that nobody has approached the issue
of breeding from the rather obvious (and I hope relevant) angle of
population control and life support stresses.

Yes, this is an obvious issue but I think you need to lay out an
argument for why it is relevant. What would prohibit the
construction of new Habitats and the resulting growth in economy,
citizen mobility, and sheer variety of experiences?

I think that once the investment has been made in the mining,
refining, and fabrication infrastructure required to construct the
pressure shells of the Habitats that there would be little call for
all that capital and the human talent to sit idle. There's no way
that they mining could continue only to supply the interior
construction of buildings, etc. The demand scales are too far apart.
And if you can sell the land of the new Habitat to new settlers and
businesses, then you're growing the economy, creating wealth, and
diversifying the industrial infrastructure.

The second habitat would be less expensive because all of that
supporting infrastructure would be considered a sunk cost. After
that first Habitat of 10,000 permanent settlers the administrators
would ask themselves, "if we had another 10,000 people, what could
they do up here?" There would be a bigger domestic market so some
products could now be built in orbit rather than imported, and
perhaps more products can be exported. Also, consider the liquidity
of individual capital tied up in Habitat real estate. If there are
only 10,000 people there, and you want to sell your condo and move
up, you've got little opportunity, but if the population is always
increasing, you could decide to move on to the new Habitat and sell
your condo to a newcomer.

Finally, no more imports of toilet paper and toothbrushes. Now there
is a toilet paper factory in orbit :) :) :)

In the past, this issue has been hand-waved away under the
presumption that 'Oh, the people living there will sort it all out,
I guess'; but eventually we may run into the limits which constrain
us here on Terra....
> Just my two cents - anyone else have a take on this?

EVENTUALLY we will run into the same limits. There's a lot of mass
and energy in orbit. Perhaps when the population in orbit is 3,000
times that of Earth, we'll have to confront the limits to growth
issue, but should the Pilgrams of Early America have practiced birth
control and conservation when they had an empty continent before
them?

TangoMan

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

> It seems reasonable to conclude that population control will
be a vitally important issue in any habitat, especially when the
limits of the life support system are being reached. So, what
measures would be rational, with regards to limiting the
population? Can it be done without continuous governmental
intrusion? Would any such measures be Eugenics? How could abuses
be discouraged? What about people who defy the policy, and their
children?

Here are some policy ramifications from a limited population growth
strategy.

Older, but not better, in Italy
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969654.asp?0dm=T26CN

TangoMan

From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]

> There's a lot of mass
> and energy in orbit. Perhaps when the population in orbit is 3,000
> times that of Earth, we'll have to confront the limits to growth
> issue,

And even then, it's important to remember that the 3,000 x figure only
refers to the most convenient, and not the only, source of raw material in
the solar system (the main belt).

Regards,

Mike Combs

Talk of 3000 * 6 billion people rather reminds me of an article in the
Scientific American written a few years ago, about the Universe when it's
in "Deep Time", aged 100 billion years and more. You have to ask what's the
point of looking that far ahead?

Today human population growth is around 16% per decade, just about the
highest ever seen on the planet. I make it at least 540 years before even
this rate (which is clearly unsustainable on Earth, and is bottlenecked
before the asteroids are available) would result in a population of 18
trillion.

Now, if you think we'll still be around in 540 years, then it's a problem
that might be worth addressing. Personally, I think the growth rates will
plummet, possibly much of humanity will be hardware, and going in for STL
interstellar travel by then...

Your futures may vary!

Andy G

On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 05:05 AM, Ravenart@... wrote:

> Botton line, we don't need governments, we need visionary businessmen
> who can
> look at problem and see gold for which they may earn by offering
> solutions.
>

The nice thing about business people running everything is their
honesty. Think Enron. Of course, without a government it's a little
difficult to see how your business folk will enforce a contract. They
could, of course, hire some bully boys to beat the livin' daylights out
of someone who filched on a contract -- or even just a legitimate
compeditor who was getting in the way of profits.

Every livable place on Earth has a government of some sort, some better
some worse. Think there might be reason for that? One reason is that
capitalism only works if you have the rule of law, and that requires a
government.

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

A quick calculation shows that the materials in Ceres is about enough
for space colonies with a total 1g surface area about 160x the surface
area of Earth. It's going to be a long time before we fill up this
solar system. By then, I'm quite sure we'll find a way to get to the
nearest star. There are about 100 billion stars in this galaxy (I
think). Population control, once we can build orbital space colonies,
is going to be the least of our problems for a very long time.

On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 01:55 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Giovanni"
> wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> The resources available within a single habitat are finite (by
> which, . . .
>
>> The technology available for creating new resources, or
> producing existing resources more efficiently, are finite within
> reasonable time scales . . .
>
>> And finally, (and this IS an actual, honest to goodness (tm)
> Axiom) that any free breeding population will expand to exceed its
> available resources (basic driving force behind natural selection,
> that. I may have been sloppy in my phraseology though.)
>> It seems reasonable to conclude that population control will
> be a vitally important issue in any habitat, especially when the
> limits of the life support system are being reached. So, what
> measures would be rational, with regards to limiting the
> population? Can it be done without continuous governmental
> intrusion? Would any such measures be Eugenics? How could abuses
> be discouraged? What about people who defy the policy, and their
> children?
>
> Hi. It's nice to hear a new voice. Here's my take on your axioms and
> argument.
>
> I pretty much agree with axiom 1. The Habitat will be designed with
> a maximum limit to the life support it can carry. This will have
> different implications for the different sizes of Habitat. An Island
> one, with a population limit of 10,000 may be filled up within a
> year if passenger shuttles departing from Earth are launched
> frequently. I'd say that they probably would allow for some growth
> over time, so they wouldn't fill it up to the max immediately. But
> growth would be limited and some population control measures would
> be necessary. It may be that the population would be temporary
> workers on assignment for 5 years and then return to Earth.
>
> At the other extreme, an Island 3, with a population limit of
> 10,000,000 will take a long time to fill up. Run some numbers for
> yourself. Even once the airlocks are opened there will be much
> interior work to be done. Housing, office, hospitals, roads, etc
> will be continually built as the population grows. Keep in mind that
> the atmosphere and other life support features will probably be
> fully established before airlock openning.
>
> The interior construction work will require different skill sets and
> robots than the equipment and skills needed to fabricate the
> pressure shell and establish the biocylinder, so if the population
> planning models call for another Habitat in X years time, this can
> be planned for and built while the population grows.
>
> Your second axiom is also true but too narrowly defined. ISTM that
> you're looking within the Habitat as the arena in which the
> technology must be applied to overcome the problem. If more CO2 in a
> plant growing environment will yield higher biomass output, then
> technology can try to find a way to replicate the process without
> CO2, or we can just process some NEO Methane Ice and pump it into
> the plant growing pod and we haven't robbed the existing biotorus of
> its stock of CO2.
>
> Your third axiom also rings true but I don't see it as a problem
> because new Habitats can be built.
>
> I'm in agreement with your position only if the citizen's of the
> first Habitat's are there on temporary assignments. Then there'll be
> little need to expand unless it's warranted by the export economy.
> There could be room for 8000 workers and 2000 children. The workers
> would be selected for small family size and births would be planned
> for, but after a period the workers would go back to Earth and new
> singles and couples would go up.
>
> If, OTOH, we're talking about permanent settlers, then I think
> there'll be different dynamics at work. You ever wonder why so many
> people are interested in economic growth statistics. They're a good
> indicator of economic prosperity and wealth. The growth comes from
> increased productivity, increased demand and population growth. As
> more and more people live in orbit, the orbital domestic economy
> will grow and more industries will be established and wholly
> supported by the orbital citizens. This'll result in the decreased
> influence of the initial export industries but also allow for the
> creation of once marginal export enterprises into operational
> enterprises because of increased capital, labor, technology and
> market demand in orbit.
>
> On Earth, as you've undoubtedly noticed, there are complicating
> factors that are assoicated with economic growth. In orbit, that
> growth and prosperity will have other issues to deal with but lack
> of space and overcrowding will probably not be significant.
>
>> I don't mean to start up the whole Fascist Blood-slinging feud
> again, but it has surprised me that nobody has approached the issue
> of breeding from the rather obvious (and I hope relevant) angle of
> population control and life support stresses.
>
> Yes, this is an obvious issue but I think you need to lay out an
> argument for why it is relevant. What would prohibit the
> construction of new Habitats and the resulting growth in economy,
> citizen mobility, and sheer variety of experiences?
>
> I think that once the investment has been made in the mining,
> refining, and fabrication infrastructure required to construct the
> pressure shells of the Habitats that there would be little call for
> all that capital and the human talent to sit idle. There's no way
> that they mining could continue only to supply the interior
> construction of buildings, etc. The demand scales are too far apart.
> And if you can sell the land of the new Habitat to new settlers and
> businesses, then you're growing the economy, creating wealth, and
> diversifying the industrial infrastructure.
>
> The second habitat would be less expensive because all of that
> supporting infrastructure would be considered a sunk cost. After
> that first Habitat of 10,000 permanent settlers the administrators
> would ask themselves, "if we had another 10,000 people, what could
> they do up here?" There would be a bigger domestic market so some
> products could now be built in orbit rather than imported, and
> perhaps more products can be exported. Also, consider the liquidity
> of individual capital tied up in Habitat real estate. If there are
> only 10,000 people there, and you want to sell your condo and move
> up, you've got little opportunity, but if the population is always
> increasing, you could decide to move on to the new Habitat and sell
> your condo to a newcomer.
>
> Finally, no more imports of toilet paper and toothbrushes. Now there
> is a toilet paper factory in orbit :) :) :)
>
> In the past, this issue has been hand-waved away under the
> presumption that 'Oh, the people living there will sort it all out,
> I guess'; but eventually we may run into the limits which constrain
> us here on Terra....
>> Just my two cents - anyone else have a take on this?
>
> EVENTUALLY we will run into the same limits. There's a lot of mass
> and energy in orbit. Perhaps when the population in orbit is 3,000
> times that of Earth, we'll have to confront the limits to growth
> issue, but should the Pilgrams of Early America have practiced birth
> control and conservation when they had an empty continent before
> them?
>
> TangoMan
>
> Canada).
>

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

> From: Al Globus [mailto:aglobus@...]

> A quick calculation shows that the materials in Ceres is about enough
> for space colonies with a total 1g surface area about 160x the surface
> area of Earth. It's going to be a long time before we fill up this
> solar system. By then, I'm quite sure we'll find a way to get to the
> nearest star. There are about 100 billion stars in this galaxy (I
> think). Population control, once we can build orbital space colonies,
> is going to be the least of our problems for a very long time.

More to the point by then we'll be able to disassemble hydrogen and helium into protons, neutrons and electrons, and then reassemble them into whatever we want. Once that happens the building material in the solar system increases by several *dozens* of orders of magnatude! Ringworld anyone?

BUT...

The longer we go on increasing our population at a blind run the harder it'll be to stop. Also in the event of catistrophic collapse colonies might had to fend for themselves without any outside assistance. If a catistrophy on Earth suddenly meant they had to fend for themselves, and couldn't afford the luxuary of building other colonies, they'd have to maintain a stable population.

ANTIcarrot.

On Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 08:33 AM, Andy Goddard wrote:

> Today human population growth is around 16% per decade, just about the
> highest ever seen on the planet. I make it at least 540 years before
> even
> this rate (which is clearly unsustainable on Earth, and is bottlenecked
> before the asteroids are available) would result in a population of 18
> trillion.
>

Best estimates of Earth's population show it leveling off at 9-10
billion within a couple of decades. It's not a simple exponential
curve.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 08:33 AM, Andy Goddard wrote:

> Now, if you think we'll still be around in 540 years, then it's a
> problem
> that might be worth addressing. Personally, I think the growth rates
> will
> plummet, possibly much of humanity will be hardware, and going in for
> STL
> interstellar travel by then...
>

Birthrates have, historically, plummeted when women get effective
control over their bodies (i.e., birth control and practical
independence from men). In most industrialized countries, the native
population is actually declining. All the population growth is coming
from people moving in from elsewhere.

The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

Why would it level off? Better education, more women working which leads to less procreation?

results from AIDs die off of breeding age humans?

From: Al Globus
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Habitat Population Control

On Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 08:33 AM, Andy Goddard wrote:

> Today human population growth is around 16% per decade, just about the
> highest ever seen on the planet. I make it at least 540 years before
> even
> this rate (which is clearly unsustainable on Earth, and is bottlenecked
> before the asteroids are available) would result in a population of 18
> trillion.
>

Best estimates of Earth's population show it leveling off at 9-10
billion within a couple of decades. It's not a simple exponential
curve.

---------------------
The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

--- Al Globus wrote:
> Birthrates have, historically, plummeted when women
> get effective
> control over their bodies (i.e., birth control and
> practical
> independence from men). In most industrialized
> countries, the native
> population is actually declining. All the
> population growth is coming
> from people moving in from elsewhere.
>
Overall I agree with the point on birth control, but
most post-industrial countries are not declining but
are significantly lower than third world countries.
Take a look at the world factbook for 2002:
http://www.bartleby.com/151/a23.html

In it you'll see that for the most part (with some
outliers) first world countries have a growth less
than 1%, whereas third world countries range from
1-4%.

Even taking a country like France with a low overall
growth rate, you'll still see that native birth rates
are higher than migration rates (11.94 births vs 0.64
migrants per 1,000).

Anyhow, mostly responded to this cause the link I put
in was one I wanted to share cause its cool and
figured tangoman would appreciate the section in it on
gdp growths :)

Ryan Z

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z wrote:

> Anyhow, mostly responded to this cause the link I put
> in was one I wanted to share cause its cool and
> figured tangoman would appreciate the section in it on
> gdp growths :)
>
> Ryan Z

Blush. You know me so well. LOL :-)

It was cool. Very exhaustive on the numbers. I did like it. Thanks.

TangoMan

On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 12:38 PM, panamabob wrote:

> Why would it level off? Better education, more women working which
> leads to less procreation?
>

Yes. The data are overwhelming. No question about it.

> results from AIDs die off of breeding age humans?

This is happening in sub-sahara Africa, but Africa is a low-population
continent in any case.

>
> From: Al Globus
> To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 3:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Habitat Population Control
>
> On Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 08:33 AM, Andy Goddard wrote:
>
>> Today human population growth is around 16% per decade, just about the
>> highest ever seen on the planet. I make it at least 540 years before
>> even
>> this rate (which is clearly unsustainable on Earth, and is
>> bottlenecked
>> before the asteroids are available) would result in a population of 18
>> trillion.
>>
>
> Best estimates of Earth's population show it leveling off at 9-10
> billion within a couple of decades. It's not a simple exponential
> curve.
>
> -
> ---------------------
> The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
> space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
> worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
> try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
> and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to
> spread
> beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.
>
> Al Globus
> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
> position of any organization I'm familiar with.
>
The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

--- In spacesettlers, Andy Goddard wrote:

> Today human population growth is around 16% per decade, just about
> the highest ever seen on the planet.

Habitat replication rate is 200 - 366 percent per decade. Habitats
can keep up with population growth quite nicely.

BTW, where did the 18 trillion figure come from?

Xenophile (who has trouble taking *but what if you can't build
another habitat* very seriously)

Hi,

Population control on a space settlement or in a confined surface habitat
is a null issue if all the inhabitants are gay. Perhaps all space settlers
should be gay or lesbian, then there is no worry about population control
or passing on genes mutated from cosmic radiation.

Throwing a cat amongst the pigeons
Michael

--- In spacesettlers, Michael wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Population control on a space settlement or in a confined surface
> habitat is a null issue if all the inhabitants are gay. Perhaps all
> space settlers should be gay or lesbian, then there is no worry
> about population control or passing on genes mutated from cosmic
> radiation.
>
> Throwing a cat amongst the pigeons
> Michael

I'm going to betray my age here, but I see a "Three's Company"
situation here.

"Um, gay? Ah, sure, I'm gay. Really I am."

Xenophile (Jack, Janet, Chrissy, Cindy, Terry, Mr. Roper, Mrs. Roper,
Larry, Mr. Furley... many a good laugh was had)

On Saturday 11 October 2003 02:16, Michael wrote:
(...)
> Population control on a space settlement or in a confined surface habitat
> is a null issue if all the inhabitants are gay. Perhaps all space settlers
> should be gay or lesbian, then there is no worry about population control
> or passing on genes mutated from cosmic radiation.

First, as we have already discussed endlessly here, mutations caused by cosmic
radiation will not be much likelier to happen in a space habitat than they
are on Earth, for there exists something called "radiation shielding".

Second, theoretically a gay/lesbian population would still reproduce if they
want to. Lesbian couples having children is very close to reality (there is a
technique for injecting the genes into the egg without sperms, see
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2001/07/12/ecnbab12.xml);
gay men having children would be more tricky, but I would not deem it
impossible. But I concede that any reproduction occurring in a gay/lesbian
colony would be assisted, and therefore much more controllable.

Aside from the reproduction aspect, however, I guess than once space
colonization is bootstrapped gay/lesbian colonies will naturally appear, in
the same way that we have gay cruises, gay districts and gay islands
(Mikonos?) in our present-day reality.

(...)
> Michael
(...)

Lucio Coelho

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:16:31 +1000, Michael wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Population control on a space settlement or in a confined surface
habitat
> is a null issue if all the inhabitants are gay. Perhaps all space
settlers
> should be gay or lesbian, then there is no worry about population
control
> or passing on genes mutated from cosmic radiation.
>
> Throwing a cat amongst the pigeons
> Michael

Hi Michael. Okay, it's an obvious troll, but I'll give it twenty
seconds. Firstly, your idea that gays will not desire children is
a non-starter; artificial insemination solves the 'involvement of the
other gender' issue for both gay men and women; and a few might be
willing to 'put up with' sex with the other gender in order to obtain a
child.
Second - the issue is to maintain a sustained population size of
colonists over a span of hundreds or thousands of years (minimum). IF
your proposition that a 100% gay population eliminates conception holds,
then you don't have a sustainable population.
Third - as intrusive, invasive, and offensive as some may find
some of the measures under discussion none of them involve controlling
who you have sex with... only how often a person can choose to have
children. What you propose would work only if you could be certain that
nobody would experiment with the opposite gender... which does seem to
happen. Now you are back to sterilization or monitoring.... Doesn't
seem like much progress to me.
And okay, it was an obvious troll, but at least somebody out
there is thinking about it. Thanks for your contribution -

Joe.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Michael wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Population control on a space settlement or in a confined surface
habitat
> is a null issue if all the inhabitants are gay. Perhaps all space
settlers
> should be gay or lesbian, then there is no worry about population
control
> or passing on genes mutated from cosmic radiation.
>
> Throwing a cat amongst the pigeons
> Michael

Would that be discramation agiast hetrosexuals?