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

I believe the lower-growth as a
> function of higher education effect you are looking at is most
pronounced in
> areas where education and standards of living is abysmally low.

Actually, it's the opposite.
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/meguro.htm

BEGIN QUOTE
The fertility rates in the Western industrialized countries declined
to the below-replacement level in the 1960s. Contraceptive devices,
legalized abortion, women's acquisition of higher education and paid
work, secularization of values, together with increased acceptance
of cohabitation and reproduction among unwed couples, the delayed
timing of marriage and the birth of the first child caused
a "revolutionary" change which led to the low fertility rate
END QUOTE

See also:
http://www.unfpa.org/intercenter/cycle/education.htm

Is the
> effect as powerful in industrialized nations? Places with strong
public
> education systems? Which societies would be better models for
orbital
> habitats?

Yes, the effect is most powerful in industrial nations.

For the long term implications, see here:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id 85219

As to you rquestion of which society is the better model for an
orbital Habitat, well that depends on many things. I would take it
for grnted that an Orbital Society will be a technological one
requiring many skilled workers, therefore, ceterus parabus, a
Western society becomes a likely model, and with that come the same
behavioral dynamics.

Just as Europe and North America need a constant influx of
immigrants to maintain their populations, so too will a Habitat that
has the same dynamics. Therefore there will never be a population
crisis because the birth rate is below replacement.

If the policies are changed to encourage procreation then you're
creating something new and different because it differs from Western
Society. What do you want to emphasize?

To encourage more children you've got to create policies that are
family friendly.

You've probably also got to change the male-female dynamic to
encourage more male-child caregiving. In a sense, a more equal
society.

I know that there are women who belong to this list and it would be
interesting to read their thoughts on how they reconcile personal
ambitions, family size, lifestyle choices for themselves, resources
that they want to devote to each child, and ambitions for their
children. All of these questions are just as applicable to men as
well.

I'll chip in with my policy suggestions in the next-go-round of this
post.

TangoMan

On Tuesday 30 September 2003 16:54, victoriatangoman wrote:
(...)
> As to you rquestion of which society is the better model for an
> orbital Habitat, well that depends on many things. I would take it
> for grnted that an Orbital Society will be a technological one
> requiring many skilled workers, therefore, ceterus parabus, a
> Western society becomes a likely model, and with that come the same
> behavioral dynamics.

On the other hand, if automation/robotics/AI goes too far (and personally I'm
skeptic about that) then at some point you will not need skilled workers
anymore, because there will be a self-sustained "ecology" of machines that
will "magically" produce anything that humans need. In a sense, we would go
back to primitive societies, where there was a biological ecology that
provided everything that they needed "for free".

> Just as Europe and North America need a constant influx of
> immigrants to maintain their populations, so too will a Habitat that
> has the same dynamics. Therefore there will never be a population
> crisis because the birth rate is below replacement.

However, as Panamabob pointed out, maybe there will be alternatives to
immigration in the future. For instance, I don't think that it would be too
far-fetched to imagine a future where a megacorporation or consortium of
corporations decides to boost population growth by using new methods like
paid families with 20 children or Brave New World-style baby factories, so
that 30 yeas down the line they still have skilled workers and a consumer
market.

That would be unacceptable under most present day ethics, but ethics changes;
on the other hand, I don't know if economic forces change that much :-).

(...)
> TangoMan
(...)

Lucio Coelho

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

> > The reason I had trouble playing along is that I think that your
> > axioms don't account for some real-life dynamics. Try and find me
> > any business that has as its goal no revenue growth. Try to find
me
> > a national economy that looks for no growth - that is striving
for a
> > static level of production, population, resource use, etc. This
just
> > doesn't happen.
>
> I disagree that economic growth is synonymous for population
growth.

I never said that they are synonymous, but population growth is a
significant contributor to economic growth. In some other post I
listed the other components of economic growth, but because of the
Digest form of response, that post was so long ago that I can't
remember where it is. If you're interested, dig through the last few
weeks of posts.

> > Perhaps you bid for the right to have a child? You do this in the
> > contract negotiation stage before you go up to the Habitat. This
way
> > management can control for growth over time.
> >
> > Perhaps the "child clause" is relaxed for those workers who are
> > getting older. But it still has to be planned if the Habitat is
> > going to be operating at the edge of its resource limits.
>
> AHA! Here's the good stuff! Bidding for the right to have
children,
> rerlaxing breeding restrictions on the elderly,

Don't you mean restricting the elderly?

pre-immigration breeding
> contracts, all thoughts which are right on target for the
subject! But
> bidding - at least in the paragraph above - presumes a corporate
habitat.

Well, yes because you can't really have a culture that consists
entirely of temporary workers and no permanent residents.

But the bidding process is just as applicable to a permanent
populace.

> Quite aside from the ethical issues, how does this work for a less
> structured environment?

I'm not sure lack of structure in other areas of society need impact
the "procreation issue."

> And does this represent a barrier to immigration?

It depends on the sceanrio you create? I've got nothing to base an
answer on. What is the fertility rate? Above replacement, below,
static?

> Should this barrier be lower for some higher for others?

Should? If you want to achieve a particular outcome, then yes it
should. If you don't want to get involved in the business of eugenic
planning, then no. You just set target levels and let the population
make-up find its own characteristics as long as the aggregate
population levels remain on target.

> Should breeding contracts be assumed to be a life support bill?

I don't know what you mean by life support bill?

> Should you have to buy
> yourself off, and how long should such contracts last? There's a
bunch of
> ways to go on this - any thoughts?

You need to define these terms because I'm not sure what you're
actually asking.

> Ok, so scrap the temporary worker scenario. What about
settlers? Given
> that a family has bought the rights to a plot of land in the
habitat,

LOL, no offense, but a just got a very Heinleinesque vision after
reading your sentence. He had these incongruous visions of starships
and people farming lands with horses and wagons. Good stories
but . .

Anyways, I think a family will probably get a mortgage for their
townhouse or condo, and then maybe later they could afford something
like a suburban house, if the land can be earmarked for that, which
I doubt.

what
> sort of arrangements need be made with regard to future population
growth?

Going just on the scenario you've sketched so far, the arrangement
will probably involve State oversight of population dynamics.
Whether this involves bidding, State selection of "optimum" parents,
or birth restrictions really depends on the societal values you set
out. You've given no indications on that front, so it's a crapshoot
as to the direction that such a society will go.

> Do they have the right to encourage an infinite number of
squatters to live
> in a shantytown on their property?

Where will the squatters come from???????

With limited real estate in a Habitat, how do you think a shantytown
will develop in someone's condo's livingroom?

Does territory ownership equate to the
> right to have an infinite number of chilren?

No, not the way you've layed out the scenario.

Do people who own more have
> rights to more descendants? What about owning two square feet of
space? Do
> you see what I'm trying to get at?

Yes, I do, but your questions are meaningless in a vacuum of
details. Tell me the nature of your society and its goals and then
there'll be some guidance as to the direction of policies.

> > Sure, but it's even simpler than that: there is money to be made
in
> > having a larger population if they are all productive. Growth is
> > good for the economy and bad for pressures on finite resources.
> > Growth is a big motivator and stasis is limiting and depressing.
>
> Here I think you are confusing the meaning of growth.
Population growth
> and economic growth are not the same thing, and I am not satisfied
that one
> is always necessary and sufficient for the other.

No, I'm not confusing the meaning of growth. I never said that
population and economic growth are the same thing. If you factor out
population growth's effect on economic growth then that factor's
loss has to be made up for by increased productivity in the other
factors, and further, the loss of population growth also decreases
your domestic market.

Here's a quick google:
http://www.bized.ac.uk/virtual/dc/copper/theory/th16.htm

> This is precisely the question that I am trying to ask the
group! What
> ethical issues do you see being involved?

The State is involved in limiting procreation. Look at the furor at
China's "One Child Policy."

What are the tolerable limits to
> restricting breeding rights?

I don't think there are tolerable limits. Once you enter this policy
realm, then you're impinging on Articles 16 and 25 of the UN
Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html

> Are breeding rights really rights at all?

Not if they are rationed and controlled by the State. Then you don't
have the right to procreate, you only have permission.

> What are appropriate responses to transgressors?

Your question is too broad considering that we know nothing about
this society other than it wants to manage no population growth. The
response could be compassionate or draconian. Give us more to work
with if you want a more definite answer.

What about illicit
> children themselves - it would be barbaric to simply space them;
is a state
> run orphanage kinder?

Of course an orphanage is kinder. Letting then stay with the parents
is even kinder still.

If you want to get draconian, why would you even "space" the child?
They did no wrong. "Space" the parents - they commited the "crime."

> If the parents keep the child, is there any penalty
> which is sufficient? If they do not, then who?

Again, I come back to the question about the nature of your society.
Give us some guidance so that our answers are appropriate to the
nature of your society.

> You probably have detected the freedom-
> > depriving theme of my responses to the limit to growth scenario.
>
> Yes, and I can tell you that I wish you'd treat the issue with
a little
> more respect.

I'm treating your questions with complete respect. I fear you just
don't like the implications that follow from this thought experiment.

I am not trying to build a vision of some sort of
> totalitarian Reich in orbit, and I don't find fantasies of that
nature
> amusing - since that is exactly what I hope this discussion will
help us
> avoid.

I'm not for a second under the impression that such a State is what
you advocate. I realize that you're just proposing a thought
provoking question.

Nevertheless, when you MUST maintain a static population, then that
calls for harsh measures and a restriction of freedom. How can it be
otherwise?

I'm glad you don't find these visions amusing but I don't see how
they can be avoided if a population MUST be kept static and the
population desires to have a fertility rate greater than replacement
levels. As I've stated earlier, if you transplant Western society
into orbit, then you'll probably have a below repalcement level
fertility rate, and the State can rest assured that it will never
have to limit procreation - it'll just have to keep an eye on
immigration levels. Of course this will still lead to population age
distribution problems.

> > Lastly, a likely
> > outcome of this scenario would be enforced euthanasia for those
who
> > exceed their alloted time within the Habitat for to let them live
> > would curtail the numbers of births that year, which would
impact on
> > school class size 10 years hence, and a shortage of some
essential
> > worker 25 years hence. So when your ticket is called, it's time
to
> > get it punched and you do that for the good of the society. Your
> > personal dignity is not an issue and you've lived your life
without
> > the inalienable human rights you've learned that others possess.
> >
> > How's that for a pessimistic view of the future? :)
>
> Look, you've raised a few good issues, why waste them on a
deliberately
> infantile 'Logans Run' fantasy? Forced euthanasia?

Who are you kidding? Infantile fantasy. You're setting up this
thought experiment to see what the possible outcomes are. You
completely remove the option of growing the population, so it MUST
remain static. You manage the levels of births but then discover
that people are living longer than what you expected. Where do you
think this crazy society is going? Yes, forced euthanasia. It's your
thought experiment, so don't insult me if you don't like my
conclusions, just refute them. Show me how you can avoid euthanasia
when you have more people in your Habitat than it can support. Don't
tell me that people can emmigrate because now you have a safety
valve and in a sense, your citizens are really long-term temporary
residents. Sheesh.

As a leader of your
> people, would you ever really advocate this as a solution?

No. As a Leader of YOUR people I would. You've created the
conditions and I have more people alive in YOUR society than the
Habitat can support. Are they all to slowly die?

Certainly, the
> age demographic of the population must be considered, but who
defines who
> lives and who dies?

The collective. The State. Either it is top-down directed, or bottom-
up directed. Nevertheless there is State control. If immigration is
an option then the State can select immigrants of appropriate age to
fill in the trouble spots.

> How could such a system NOT be rife with nepotism?

If all of the citizens buy into the goal of living in a Static
soceity, then they all play by the rules. If some people are exempt
by nepotism, that'll sow the seeds of discontent, and lead to
trouble.

If
> you are to be euthanized, why must you die without dignity?

Who said you had to die without dignity?

Are the
> inalienable human rights really inalienable, if they are so easily
taken
> away?

Of course there are no such things as inalienable rights. They're
just a social construction.

It would help advance this thread if you added more substance to the
vision you're proposing rather than just asking questions that are
absent context.

I'm happy to engage in a dialogue on this topic but I've no real
interest in just answering vague questions with no guidance from you
on what you want to discover from this process. I'm happy to engage
so that we can see where such a scenario leads us - I'm unwilling to
be lead to a foregone conclusion that you may have and want others
to arrive at. In that case just tell us where you see it going and
I'll either agree or disagree with you.

Let's hear your thoughts on all of the questions above.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote:
>
> > > The reason I had trouble playing along is that I think that
your
> > > axioms don't account for some real-life dynamics. Try and find
me
> > > any business that has as its goal no revenue growth. Try to
find
> me
> > > a national economy that looks for no growth - that is striving
> for a
> > > static level of production, population, resource use, etc.
This
> just
> > > doesn't happen.
> >
> > I disagree that economic growth is synonymous for population
> growth.
>
> I never said that they are synonymous, but population growth is a
> significant contributor to economic growth. In some other post I
> listed the other components of economic growth, but because of the
> Digest form of response, that post was so long ago that I can't
> remember where it is. If you're interested, dig through the last
few
> weeks of posts.

Look here for analysis of what a declining population means for
economic growth:
http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid220

Look here for population decline linkages to economic, cultural and
scientific stagnation:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID 030517-042025-4614r
http://www.iht.com/articles/96216.html

TangoMan

> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:54:24 -0000
> From: "victoriatangoman"
> Subject: Population Control Policy Issues
>
>>--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote:
>>
>> I believe the lower-growth as a function of higher education effect you
are looking at is most
>> pronounced in areas where education and standards of living is abysmally
low.
>
> Actually, it's the opposite.
> http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/meguro.htm
>
> BEGIN QUOTE
> The fertility rates in the Western industrialized countries declined
> to the below-replacement level in the 1960s. Contraceptive devices,
> legalized abortion, women's acquisition of higher education and paid
> work, secularization of values, together with increased acceptance
> of cohabitation and reproduction among unwed couples, the delayed
> timing of marriage and the birth of the first child caused
> a "revolutionary" change which led to the low fertility rate
> END QUOTE

This would seem to be a poor example. The first sentence makes it clear
that the western industrialized countries are NOT compared to less developed
countries, but that the following comments are only relevant when they
compared to themselves. The rest of the quote is:

Rest of Quote:
. However, some countries, such as Sweden and the United States, where the
participation of women in the labor market was common, eventually regained
their earlier levels.
End Rest of Quote

So the education of women has an effect on fertility; this fertility
effect is temporary in some industrialized nations. Also, the drop in
fertility is caused through a number of factors, including delay of
marriage. From the same site:

Begin Quote:
Young men are more confined to their gender role while women try to make
choices for a life style which demands little cost. This, according to a
recent analysis I carried out with my colleagues, is the main cause not only
of the delay in marriage but also of the low overall fertility rate and of
an emerging trend toward having fewer children among married couples.
End Quote

> See also:
> http://www.unfpa.org/intercenter/cycle/education.htm

This site does NOT talk about industrialized countries; See the
following

Begin Quote:
Around the world, education of boys is more highly valued than of girls. The
benefit of education for girls is indisputable, but not all parents perceive
this. There are tremendous gaps in both school enrolment and the length of
time boys and girls stay in school. While nearly all boys begin primary
school, only three out of four girls do so. In many developing countries,
fewer than half of all children continue on to secondary school, and girls
are far less likely than boys to do so. In Bangladesh, for instance,
secondary enrolment is 25 per cent for boys but only 13 per cent for girls.
End Quote.

Note that they talk about enrollment and retention gaps; gaps which are
far narrower in countries with strong public education systems. They go on
to specify "In many developing countries..." which makes their context
explicit - and they finish with an example showing their point: Bangladesh.
In the US, enrollment in secondary school (theoretically, I don't have any
actual numbers here - would someone care to weigh in?) approaches 100
percent for both genders. Great Britian is probably similar, ditto for
Germany, and Canada, and Australia...

>> Is the effect as powerful in industrialized nations? Places with strong
>> public education systems? Which societies would be better models for
>>orbital habitats?
>
> Yes, the effect is most powerful in industrial nations.

With all due respect, you have not shown this. I will note that the
second link you provided says:

Begin Quote:
a.. Decisions about schooling for girls are often influenced by social norms
related to sexuality and marriage. In traditional societies where chastity
is highly valued, parents may be reluctant to allow girls to travel to
school, be taught by male teachers and have close contact with boys. Parents
often expect girls will marry at an early age, not needing education.
End Quote.

This would seem to bear out the idea that education delays marriage -
and that the impact is strongest in developing countries where a strong
public education system has not previously been implemented.

> For the long term implications, see here:
> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id 85219

This appears to be an article about state run pension plans; and the
fact that pay-as-you-go plans are deeply flawed. The points where it
becomes relevant have to do with decling birth rates in the European
countries - but they do not attribute this to educating women. Rather, they
say that some women choose to forgo childbearing because they seem to have
to choose between a career and a child; and goes on to encourage social
programs to help mothers go to work. The economist also states their
position that: "... coercive social-engineering schemes should be repugnant
to any liberal democracy."
The article also does not make it clear whether or not birth rates are below
population replacement rates.

> As to you rquestion of which society is the better model for an
> orbital Habitat, well that depends on many things. I would take it
> for grnted that an Orbital Society will be a technological one
> requiring many skilled workers, therefore, ceterus parabus, a
> Western society becomes a likely model, and with that come the same
> behavioral dynamics.

I think we agree here. It does, however, render your earlier links
about fertility in developing countries irrelevant.

> Just as Europe and North America need a constant influx of
> immigrants to maintain their populations, so too will a Habitat that
> has the same dynamics.

This is something that you have not shown. The "Economist" article
talked about maintaining pension plans, not maintaining populations. For
demographic data for the United States from the 2000 census:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_ts082319740
and for projections of population growth in the United States for the next
100 years (apparently with different assumed levels of immigration):
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t1.pdf

Note that in the "Zero International Immigration" column, the United
States is still projected to grow in population over the next century. I
don't have data for the European countries, but would love to see some links
if anyone has 'em.

> Therefore there will never be a population
> crisis because the birth rate is below replacement.

At least in the case of using the US as a model, I have shown this to be
incorrect. The US is growing, even without international immigration; a
habitat which used the US as a model would eventually fill, and potentially
face a (too darn large) population crisis.

> If the policies are changed to encourage procreation then you're
> creating something new and different because it differs from Western
> Society. What do you want to emphasize?

Well, in the (academic) case where your population is shrinking, I want
to explore what policies would be rational to avoid the (too darn small)
population crisis.

> To encourage more children you've got to create policies that are
> family friendly.

Yes. Good. Like what? It's the ideas that I am interested in - and
it's no good coming up with "a million dollars for every child"
pie-in-the-sky policies; they'll have to be something that a ruling body
could afford to sustain without sacrificing its other functions, and
something which is enforcable, and not so intrusive that everyone would
rather just do away with the ruling body than comply....

> You've probably also got to change the male-female dynamic to
> encourage more male-child caregiving. In a sense, a more equal
> society.

I'm not certain this is true; but there are certainly some who do
advocate this. Fortunately, if we do ever get to the point where there are
many habitats, then all sorts of social experiments can be tried.

> I know that there are women who belong to this list and it would be
> interesting to read their thoughts on how they reconcile personal
> ambitions, family size, lifestyle choices for themselves, resources
> that they want to devote to each child, and ambitions for their
> children. All of these questions are just as applicable to men as
> well.

I'd like to hear from anyone. Of course, I'd prefer to discuss what
measures a society could rationally use in the face of an impending (too
darn large) population crisis. I suppose, as a foundation to that, we need
to discuss breeding - is absolutely unlimited breeding an absolute human
right? Is any attempt to limit the number of children born an anathema? If
a couple can choose - of their own free-will - whether or not to conceive,
then do they have any responsibility to the rest of the population who also
depend on the same life support system? If they choose to act
irresponsibly, overloading said LS system, is any mechanism for holding them
responsible a violation of fundamental rights, an abomination? There are a
whole slew of other questions - I'd love to hear some thoughts.

> I'll chip in with my policy suggestions in the next-go-round of this
> post.
>
> TangoMan

I look forward to hearing your policy suggestions; and I hope that, just
for the moment, and just for this topic, that we can dispense with all the
it'll-never-happen / oh-yes-it-will-too rhetoric. As I've said, I'm really
interested in what to do when we get close to there, thus the whole "closed
system approaching a population crisis" harping. Thanks for sharing your
thoughts;

Joe

> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:43:03 -0300
> From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
> Subject: Re: Population Control Policy Issues

> On Tuesday 30 September 2003 16:54, victoriatangoman wrote:
> (...)
>> As to you rquestion of which society is the better model for an
>> orbital Habitat, well that depends on many things. I would take it
>> for grnted that an Orbital Society will be a technological one
>> requiring many skilled workers, therefore, ceterus parabus, a
>> Western society becomes a likely model, and with that come the same
>> behavioral dynamics.
>
> On the other hand, if automation/robotics/AI goes too far (and personally
I'm
> skeptic about that) then at some point you will not need skilled workers
> anymore, because there will be a self-sustained "ecology" of machines that
> will "magically" produce anything that humans need. In a sense, we would
go
> back to primitive societies, where there was a biological ecology that
> provided everything that they needed "for free".

Interesting ideas for sci-fi here. Imagine finding a habitat where the
builders had gone extinct, because they lost the need for technical
expertise and devolved to a primitive society - of course, (handwaving)
since they had previously been a highly educated society with a negative
population growth they wouldn't be able to maintain their gene pool, and
would die out. You'd have an "empty Eden" - a paradise for a group of
sapients who weren't around anymore.

>> Just as Europe and North America need a constant influx of
>> immigrants to maintain their populations, so too will a Habitat that
>> has the same dynamics. Therefore there will never be a population
>> crisis because the birth rate is below replacement.
>
> However, as Panamabob pointed out, maybe there will be alternatives to
> immigration in the future. For instance, I don't think that it would be
too
> far-fetched to imagine a future where a megacorporation or consortium of
> corporations decides to boost population growth by using new methods like
> paid families with 20 children or Brave New World-style baby factories, so
> that 30 yeas down the line they still have skilled workers and a consumer
> market.
>
>That would be unacceptable under most present day ethics, but ethics
changes;
>on the other hand, I don't know if economic forces change that much :-).

Is it possible that the mega-corp would be ambivalent about losing
skilled human workers? Especially postulating an advanced enough automation
tech; is it possible that the mega corp could eventually come down to just
the stockholders being human, while all the management, production,
accounting, and marketing would be handled by robots? In which case you've
got a situation where the human stockholders get paid huge dividends (all
the net profits of the Mega-Corp) and no need to work... Not really
relevant to a closed system approaching a (too darn large) population
crisis, but a fun concept anyhow.
On the subject of a closed system approaching a (too darn small)
population crisis.... While I agree that many people find "Brave new world"
style baby factories repulsive, I submit that this is a work of fiction -
ie, the author was TRYING to be as repulsive as possible. Actual 'baby
factories' (if they ever exist) may not bear any resemblance to the ones in
BNW at all - or even be called 'baby factories'. Could you please elaborate
on the subject of 'Paid Families'? Would a paid family have to have 20
children? Or would 3 be acceptable? Is there something in this concept as
you see it that is inherently repulsive? If so, what? Could every family
be a paid family, or would there be a selection process?

> (...)
>> TangoMan
> (...)
>
> Lucio Coelho

Joe

On Wednesday 01 October 2003 18:07, Joe wrote:
(...)
> On the subject of a closed system approaching a (too darn small)
> population crisis.... While I agree that many people find "Brave new
> world" style baby factories repulsive, I submit that this is a work of
> fiction - ie, the author was TRYING to be as repulsive as possible. Actual
> 'baby factories' (if they ever exist) may not bear any resemblance to the
> ones in BNW at all - or even be called 'baby factories'.

I don't think that the baby factories in BNW are repulsive. Maybe one day
ectogenesis will be the preferred way for having children. Very comfortable
and without body sequels for women, and perhaps safer. Besides, fetuses in
glasses are kind of cute. (Okay, my aesthetic tastes are slightly distorted.
:-)

My main "concern" in BNW was raising children in orphanage-like institutions.
I think that we have hardwired instincts demanding something like a family...

> Could you please
> elaborate on the subject of 'Paid Families'? Would a paid family have to
> have 20 children? Or would 3 be acceptable? Is there something in this
> concept as you see it that is inherently repulsive? If so, what? Could
> every family be a paid family, or would there be a selection process?

Unwillingly, I think that I raised an issue related to paid families in my
other post where I pictured a birth-control system where people could sell
the right to have children.

As for your questions:

- No, the concept of paid families does not sound utterly revolting to me. In
some extent, that already exists: there are countries where the government
gives subsidies/fiscal incentives for people who have children.
- I really don't know how to answer the questions about the ideal number of
children per family and how the families would be selected. I think different
mega-corps would have different answers for that. Indeed, I just imagined a
bizarre mega-corp eugenics program where they would select families that
produce a lot and consume a lot - the ideal family under a market view. Over
many generations, they would build a population of ber-compulsive-consumers
and ber-workaholics (and floppy ears :-).

(...)
> Joe
(...)

Lucio

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

> >> Is the effect as powerful in industrialized nations? Places
with strong
> >> public education systems? Which societies would be better
models for
> >>orbital habitats?
> >
> > Yes, the effect is most powerful in industrial nations.
>
> With all due respect, you have not shown this. I will note
that the
> second link you provided says:
>
> Begin Quote:
> a.. Decisions about schooling for girls are often influenced by
social norms
> related to sexuality and marriage. In traditional societies where
chastity
> is highly valued, parents may be reluctant to allow girls to
travel to
> school, be taught by male teachers and have close contact with
boys. Parents
> often expect girls will marry at an early age, not needing
education.
> End Quote.
>
> This would seem to bear out the idea that education delays
marriage -
> and that the impact is strongest in developing countries where a
strong
> public education system has not previously been implemented.

What you are looking for is a well known sociological feature. I did
some quick googling on your behalf and came up with those links. A
quick glance at them satisfied me that they addressed some issue of
relevance. I'm sorry if they didn't directly answer the question you
posed. If you believe otherwise you should delve into the literature
to find the data for yourself. It'll take some sifting on your part
but the data is out there. Good hunting.

>
> > For the long term implications, see here:
> > http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?
story_id 85219
>
> This appears to be an article about state run pension plans;
and the
> fact that pay-as-you-go plans are deeply flawed. The points where
it
> becomes relevant have to do with decling birth rates in the
European
> countries - but they do not attribute this to educating women.

Again, not every piece of information is structured to directly
answer your question. You have to look at the data and analyze it
yourself or spend more time searching for the particular data that
EXACTLY fits your question. I'm aware of the dynamics involved but I
have no burning desire to make a case for something that is well
understood in the literature, unlike many of the debates that
punctuate this list, where I do care about the nuances of points
relevant to orbital activity and do spend the time to find links
that are exactly releveant to the nuance of discussion. The links I
provided were quick googles because the issue is tangential to our
main topics. If you dispute them then by all means carry on with
your other premise.

The pension data shows what how a low birth rate, whatever the
cause, affects the functioning of a nation's economy. You're
modeling a static population model. The age distribution within that
model will be very important to the dynamism of the economy.

If you look more deeply into the existing literature you'll see this
type of causation:

rising education of women ---> more opportunities for women --->
Developed countries have more opportunities than Developing
countries ---> women taking advantage of those opportunities and
delaying fertility ---> less fertile years available to give birth --
-> increased opportunity increases chances for socioeconomic
advancement ---> decisions to focus more family wealth and attention
on fewer children in order to present the children with greater
opportunities in life ---> fewer children means lower total
fertility ---> lower total fertility means that social schemes that
rely on replacement fertility rates are in danger of underfunding --
-> An underfunded pension scheme is a looming disaster for a nation.

Amidst ALL of the variables at play that lead to the conclusion, one
of those variables is the rising education levels of women and the
resulting decrease in fertility.

It's too bad that the author of the piece wasn't writing directly to
your question so he could have spelled it out explicitly but there
are other studies and articles which all allude to the same
dynamics, and I'm sure there are even some which point directly to
rising education levels for women.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide all the
supporting data for the above. You can doubt it and I'll take no
offense. There is a wealth of literature out there for those
inclined to search for it.

Rather, they
> say that some women choose to forgo childbearing because they seem
to have
> to choose between a career and a child; and goes on to encourage
social
> programs to help mothers go to work. The economist also states
their
> position that: "... coercive social-engineering schemes should be
repugnant
> to any liberal democracy."
> The article also does not make it clear whether or not birth rates
are below
> population replacement rates.

Another quick google to answer your fertility question.

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/total_fertility_r
ate/

http://www.childrenforthefuture.org/more_fertility_&_education.htm

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 October 2003 18:07, Joe wrote:
> (...)
>> On the subject of a closed system approaching a (too darn
small)
>> population crisis.... While I agree that many people find "Brave
new
>> world" style baby factories repulsive, I submit that this is a
work of
>> fiction - ie, the author was TRYING to be as repulsive as
possible. Actual
>> 'baby factories' (if they ever exist) may not bear any
resemblance to the
>> ones in BNW at all - or even be called 'baby factories'.
>
> I don't think that the baby factories in BNW are repulsive. Maybe
one day
> ectogenesis will be the preferred way for having children. Very
comfortable
> and without body sequels for women, and perhaps safer. Besides,
fetuses in
> glasses are kind of cute. (Okay, my aesthetic tastes are slightly
distorted.
> :-)
>
> My main "concern" in BNW was raising children in orphanage-like
institutions.
> I think that we have hardwired instincts demanding something like
a family...

Okay, I think we may be on the same page here, but I wanted to
counter the potential for horror associated with comparing breeding
practices with BNW. And I think you may have a very valid point
about us being hard-wired for a family oriented life-style; several
million years of primate evolution don't just go out the door
whenever we think it's convenient for it to do so.

>> Could you please
>> elaborate on the subject of 'Paid Families'? Would a paid family
have to
>> have 20 children? Or would 3 be acceptable? Is there something
in this
>> concept as you see it that is inherently repulsive? If so,
what? Could
>> every family be a paid family, or would there be a selection
process?
>
> Unwillingly, I think that I raised an issue related to paid
families in my
> other post where I pictured a birth-control system where people
could sell
> the right to have children.

Which seems okay to me - at least, if you make conception a
limited commodity then people will find ways to trade it for cash.
Better to come right out and make the trade visible and subject to
the reasonable controls required to prevent abuses; than to pretend
such a trade doesn't (or won't) exist.

> As for your questions:
>
> - No, the concept of paid families does not sound utterly
revolting to me. In
> some extent, that already exists: there are countries where the
government
> gives subsidies/fiscal incentives for people who have children.
> - I really don't know how to answer the questions about the ideal
number of
> children per family and how the families would be selected. I
think different
> mega-corps would have different answers for that. Indeed, I just
imagined a
> bizarre mega-corp eugenics program where they would select
families that
> produce a lot and consume a lot - the ideal family under a market
view. Over
> many generations, they would build a population of ber-compulsive-
consumers
> and ber-workaholics (and floppy ears :-).

Okay - here we've gone from paying families to have children
(which is an interesting issue in its own right) to corporate
eugenic control over employees. True enough that given a eugenics
program, any number of complex behaviors or predispositions could
eventually be selected for, but this has some elements that deserve
discussion on their own. But even before we get started on the
breeding issue and the desirability of floppy ears, I notice you
have posited a series of habitats, each controlled by a single
corporate entity - this is an interesting background all by itself.
As an aside, I sure as heck wouldn't want to permanently settle in
one.
Can we discuss these seperately? Would you accept or advocate
a government controlling its population size through establishing a
system of financial rewards and disincentives? How effective do you
forsee such a plan being? Are there any possible loopholes or
potential abuses that you could forsee?
In the case of the corporate habitat - would such a habitat be
subject to any governmental laws, or could the corporation rule by
fiat? If the companies - and their habitats - are answerable to
(for example) the laws of the country they are incorporated in, then
how do you ensure compliance?

>
> (...)
>> Joe
> (...)
>
> Lucio

Just a few thoughts, and thanks for sharing yours.

Joe.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
>--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>>> Yes, the effect is most powerful in industrial nations.
>>
>> With all due respect, you have not shown this. I will note
>> that the second link you provided says:
>>
[SNIP]
>>
>> This would seem to bear out the idea that education delays
>> marriage - and that the impact is strongest in developing
>> countries where a strong public education system has not
>> previously been implemented.
>
> What you are looking for is a well known sociological feature. I
> did some quick googling on your behalf and came up with those
> links. A quick glance at them satisfied me that they addressed
> some issue of relevance. I'm sorry if they didn't directly answer
> the question you posed. If you believe otherwise you should delve
> into the literature to find the data for yourself. It'll take some
> sifting on your part but the data is out there. Good hunting.

So the burden of proof is on me to disprove your
unsupported and ridiculous claim? Amazing! I've encountered
argument-from-ignorance before, but never argument-from-laziness!
The links you have provided have either not supported, or outright
contradicted your claim - and you want to shift the burden of proof
to me?

>
>>
>>> For the long term implications, see here:
>>> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?
story_id 85219
>>
>> This appears to be an article about state run pension plans;
>> and the fact that pay-as-you-go plans are deeply flawed. The
>> points where it becomes relevant have to do with decling birth
>> rates in the European countries - but they do not attribute this
>> to educating women.
>
> Again, not every piece of information is structured to directly
> answer your question. You have to look at the data and analyze it
> yourself or spend more time searching for the particular data that
> EXACTLY fits your question. I'm aware of the dynamics involved but
> I have no burning desire to make a case for something that is well
> understood in the literature, unlike many of the debates that
> punctuate this list, where I do care about the nuances of points
> relevant to orbital activity and do spend the time to find links
> that are exactly releveant to the nuance of discussion. The links
> I provided were quick googles because the issue is tangential to
> our main topics. If you dispute them then by all means carry on
> with your other premise.

Your whole line of reasoning is tangental to the issue I have
wanted to focus on since I started this thread; nobody is forcing
you to maintain your position, or continue posting it. If you don't
want to participate, that's fine - but expect that if you advance an
implausible claim (which would seem to be "A habitat with a stable
population will inevitably experience economic stasis or disaster")
that some sort of proof will be required before you are taken
seriously. If you don't care to make the effort to defend your
claim, then why should we just roll over and accept it?

> The pension data shows what how a low birth rate, whatever the
> cause, affects the functioning of a nation's economy. You're
> modeling a static population model. The age distribution within
> that model will be very important to the dynamism of the economy.

No, the pension data shows how a low birth rate COMBINED WITH
decades of gross governmental mismanagement, overspending, and a
failure of native economy to remain competitve due to expensive
protectionist trade policies affects the functioning of a nations
economy. I submit that the declining population is a trivial
contributor.

> If you look more deeply into the existing literature you'll see
> this type of causation:
>
> rising education of women ---> more opportunities for women --->
> Developed countries have more opportunities than Developing
> countries ---> women taking advantage of those opportunities and
> delaying fertility ---> less fertile years available to give
> birth ---> increased opportunity increases chances for
> socioeconomic advancement ---> decisions to focus more family
> wealth and attention on fewer children in order to present the
> children with greater opportunities in life ---> fewer children
> means lower total fertility ---> lower total fertility means that
> social schemes that rely on replacement fertility rates are in
> danger of underfunding ---> An underfunded pension scheme is a
> looming disaster for a nation.

Ok; there's no way I can swallow this whole slippery-slope. If
you want to be taken seriouly, the please demonstrate - historical
data would be nice - how "rising educaion for women --...--
> ...looming disaster for a nation". For you to argue this borders
on the absurd, none of your links have bourne this out. Note that
you've gone for a model of a developing country in step one, to a
model of a developed post-industrial nation in step ten. The irony,
of course, is that originally I just took exception to your last two
statements - and now you've puffed your argument up with a whole
bunch of unnecesary hot air, and have more that you have to defend.

> Amidst ALL of the variables at play that lead to the conclusion,
> one of those variables is the rising education levels of women and
> the resulting decrease in fertility.

Yes, we can agree on some of this - a decrease in fertility is
one - and only one in a multitude - of the factors affecting an
economy. I may even concede that a lower than replacement rate
fertility is a bad thing for an economy - but that leaves you an
awful long way to go to reach the conclusion that a drop in
fertility is inevitable disaster.

> It's too bad that the author of the piece wasn't writing directly
> to your question so he could have spelled it out explicitly but
> there are other studies and articles which all allude to the same
> dynamics, and I'm sure there are even some which point directly to
> rising education levels for women.

Yeah - it's too bad the author was just presenting the facts as he
saw them, in a report written for his own purposes; and that he
conspired to turn up in your google search and make you cite his
findings (irrelevant to your argument) as evidence. Naughty, evil,
bad author - you must give him a good spanking!

> I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide all the
> supporting data for the above. You can doubt it and I'll take no
> offense. There is a wealth of literature out there for those
> inclined to search for it.

Those inclined to search for the data just don't happen to
include the person whose argument requires the data for credibility?

>
>> Rather, they say that some women choose to forgo childbearing
>> because they seem to have to choose between a career and a child;
>> and goes on to encourage social programs to help mothers go to
>> work. The economist also states their position that: "...
>> coercive social-engineering schemes should be repugnant to any
>> liberal democracy."
>> The article also does not make it clear whether or not birth
>> rates are below population replacement rates.
>
> Another quick google to answer your fertility question.
>
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/total_fertility_r
ate/

At last! a link which would seem to support your claim. Of
course, if you look closely you'll notice that the US isn't below
replacement rates, even with their data. And their using data from
1999 or before. This is papered over by referring to North America,
which for some reason doesn't include Mexico (won't geographers be
surprised!). Europe is a bit worse off with an 'average' of 1.5
children per family - with Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, and
Switzerland at 1.5, Denmark, Finland, france, Iceland,
Ireland,Norway, Sweden, and the UK above that - in fact the
scandinavion countries tend to cluster around 1.7. The real losers
appear to be Germany and Italy at 1.3 and 1.2, respectively. So, if
we are willing to accept this as the best data available - and I've
already provided a link to the US Census 2000, and you provided
links to the IFRI report (both of which contradict at least the US
data given on this site) - then all you have to prove is that the
declining population is the BIGGEST or ONLY factor leading to
economic decline. Frankly, I don't think you can do it.

> http://www.childrenforthefuture.org/more_fertility_&_education.htm

Another link that doesn't really help your case too much. They
state that birth rates in the US are higher than they've been in 30
years; it's just that such births are later in a womans reproductive
life. They do mention below replacement rate fertility in Europe -
but what do they point to as the cause? Education? No... a lack of
social programs to give more money to mothers - and parental
barriers like mandatory overtime, inadequate leave time, and hostile
Social security rules.

And still, neither of these links provides a link between the
cited fertility rates and economic productivity, which has always
been the portion of your arguement that has been weakest. If you
are going to argue that declining fertility or a static population
will lead to economic decline, then you still need evidence.

> TangoMan

Joe.

On Thursday 02 October 2003 13:28, avatar643 wrote:
(...)
> Can we discuss these seperately? Would you accept or advocate
> a government controlling its population size through establishing a
> system of financial rewards and disincentives? How effective do you
> forsee such a plan being? Are there any possible loopholes or
> potential abuses that you could forsee?

As I said before, there *are* already governments doing this financial
reward/punishment thing to encourage population growth. Italian government
for instance. Interestingly, there are also *companies* doing that too - a
company in Japan awards a prize of $10K per child to the employees that
conceive more than two children. See http://www.overpopulation.org/older.html

I accept *and* advocate governments taking measures against both over and
under population. Both carry a series of practical problems, and practical
problems need practical solutions.

However, in the underpopulation case, I don't know how efficient the
incentives exemplified above are - I would advocate something more aggressive
like paying *a salary* per each children. The paid family model... But then
we have a resource allocation problem: governments dealing with
underpopulation problems are usually cash-strapped because they have to
sustain the elders; so, how to pay for new children?

> In the case of the corporate habitat - would such a habitat be
> subject to any governmental laws, or could the corporation rule by
> fiat? If the companies - and their habitats - are answerable to
> (for example) the laws of the country they are incorporated in, then
> how do you ensure compliance?
(...)

Ah, this issue is a wasp nest (as we say in Brazil). Even muddier than the
population control thing... Well, assuming that the High Frontier will be
boosted by private companies rather than governments (and I do believe in
that assumption) then much likely the companies will have the will *and* the
power to enforce laws in their colonies. "Base countries" would likely be
non-existant, because big companies are becoming increasingly transnational
and at some time perhaps they will be *meta*national. However, that does not
mean that they can do anything that they want, because: if they do something
that is too unpopular (for instance, mass-killing employees that committed
some "crime") then people elsewhere will buy less from that company. A
question of public image.

Lucio

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote:
>>
>> Your quoted paragraph that I had responded to seemed - and still
does
>> seem - to want to make the jump from zero population growth to
zero economic
>> growth.
>
> No, what I was saying was that a society that is population static
> is going to lose vibrancy.

[SNIP]

> But let's leave it aside because I'm sure we can bat around every
> point that we disagree on until this e-mail becomes unwieldy.
>
[SNIP]
>
> When I read your re-phrasing of my comment as "the elderly" I
didn't
> even recognize the provenance. I thought you were referring to
> people beyond their optimum procreation years, and thought why
would
> you favor them? They'd need all sorts of IVF assistance when
younger
> people could conceive naturally.

Actually, you could make a eugenic argument in favor of
favoring the elderly for breeding. By doing so, you are selecting
for a longer life-span; and if your workers are productive for a
lreater length of time, it may be a good thing - a smaller fraction
of your resources would need to be spent on training their
replacements. Also, if longer life spans means defering some of the
medical costs of being elderly, then that may be regarded as a good
thing too. Of course, if you were arguing from a eugenics
standpoint for the purpose of selecting for a longer lifespan, then
you would probably want to discourage the use of fertility enhancing
treatments.
Please note that I am not (yet, anyhow) advocating eugenics, in
either its positive or neagative forms at this point, I just thought
it might be an interesting observation.

>
>> I was just happy that you seemed to be thinking on topic for a
>> moment -
>
> Like I wrote earlier, I didn't buy into all the axioms, so my
first
> approach, along with a number of others on the list, was to
> challenge them.
>
[SNIP]
>
> I do politely request that we enter into more of a
> dialogue rather than this socratic process where you're trying to
> draw out answers. That's quickly becoming a dry exercise.
>
>>>> Quite aside from the ethical issues, how does this work for a
>>>> less structured environment?
[Snip]
>
> Again, we're having trouble in our communication. I wasn't even
> thinking of Anarchists or Libertarians when I read the
phrase, "less
> structured environment." I was thinking of a more "loose" family
> structure, a less rigid socio-economic hierarchy, etc. So, no I
> wasn't kidding. You just assumed I knew what you meant by your
> phrasing, just as I assumed you knew what I meant by my economic
> references above. That's the danger we face in a discussion forum.

True enough; sorry if I came of as a bit brusque. And to be
honest, I'm not sure what sort of effects living in a habitat will
have on the family structure, especially if controlled breeding or
restricted longevity is introduced.

>
>> For right now I'm just interested in population control; though
this
>> did spring from the eugenics thread, thats not really my focus.
We
>> can cover it later though, if you feel it merits discussion.
>
> I think once the State gets involved in granting permission to
> procreate then you've entered the dark side of eugenics. Once the
> State is involved to that degree, it becomes easier to start
> directing towards an outcome. This is the danger that others have
> pointed out.
>
> I hope this outcome can be avoided, but considering the
limitations
> imposed by the axioms I'm unsure of exactly how it can be avoided.

Ok - now I'm sure we're on the same page; and we disagree. To
me, the dark side of eugenics is (as you have appropriately pointed
out) the approach labelled 'Negative Eugenics' - reducing the
breeding of those who could pass on undesireable traits. But
restricted breeding isn't the really nasty bit to my mind; it is the
complete removal of certain people from the gene pool - especially
by the historical method of killing them.
Completely removing people from the gene pool can be done with
sterilization, and need not be as bloodthirsty or permanent as
killing someone.

>
>>
>>> You just set target levels and let the population
>>> make-up find its own characteristics as long as the aggregate
>>> population levels remain on target.
>>
>> An excellent bit of reasoning! Exactly the sort of thing I'm
>> interested in; and I gotta say I like the hands-off angle. There
>> may be problems though - can you see any?
>
> Procreation decisions are made at the individual level and those
> decisions aren't guided by the population targets. You may have an
> oscillating pattern over the years that is constantly trying to
> compensate for previous overages or shortfalls. Without a guiding
> hand this hands-off (no pun intended) approach will be problematic.

Well, yes, enforcement could be a problem - if you just tell
everyone in the habitat the target number and the current
population, then diffusion of responsibility would lead to evyone
thinking that everyone else would do it. You may not even be able
to call it a coherent policy if you didn't have some way of
enforcing it; but that wasn't really what I had in mind when I said
I could see a potential problem with it. Of course, after I
finished replying, I realized that my problem was "out of bounds"...
here it is anyway.
If you just set a target population number, and make up any
shortfalls from controlling immigration numbers (see where I went
out of bounds? Heck.) then you may have troubles with other
habitats crap-flooding you with everyone they regard as
undesirables. While you may not be compelled to take any of them,
it might be better to solve the (too darn small) population crisis
with internal policies.

>
>> So - life support will cost money. Who pays? Well, everyone
>> in the habitat benefits (heh - there's an understatement) from
>> having a working life support system; perhaps everyone should pay
>> a little? Can you construct other plausible ways of paying?
>
> Perhaps its a common good so there isn't a defined per capita cost.
>
> Perhaps the industries pay for it.

I'm pretty sure that whoever produces it will be able to figure
a per capita cost without too much trouble; and if it is in private
hands then they'll be likely to add a little extra onto the cost so
as to net at least a small profit. As an interesting aside, one of
the benefits such a company might offer it's employees and
pensioners is 'free' life support credit. In a Socialist or
Communist setting, it would almost certainly be state run; this
worries me, as I have very little faith in state run institutions -
especially commercial ones. In a modified / limited capitalism, it
might or might not be state run - but would almost certainly (in
either case) be presented as a commercial model. I can't really
picture how libertarian or Anarchist societies could function, so I
don't have any conjectures about how they would handle Life Support;
but a despotism is dead easy - it would be a commercial venture run
by one of the despot lieutenants, and would be one of the juicier
positions available... so much room for abuse.

>
>> So, with regards to your question - does paying more towards
>> the life support expenses for the entire habitat entitle someone
>> to have more children?
>
> No. Paying more in income tax doesn't entitle you to more
protection
> from the military. I'd say that's the most applicable principle.

I wish yo hadn't picked income tax as an example - it's one tax
I REALLY hate. Still, I am interested in hearing your analysis of
how the two are similar - I'd been thinking of a Life Support bill
or tax as being a sort of consumption tax, like sales tax. That is,
you pay for what you consume - if you go on vacation somewhere else
for a month, you don't pay it for a month. Similarly, the bill for
paying for a pets life support would be easy to figure - a function
of the pets weight and metabolic rate. It was this sort of thinking
that lead me to the "more kids for money" question.

[SNIP]
>
> I'd say that there is no connection between property rights and
> loads on life support systems. In light of my above answer, the
life
> support is a common good.

So it would be possible to own land in a habitat, but not be
allowed to breathe on it? I know that may sound silly, but I think
it might make very good sense. Of course the property owner could
argue that any plants growing on his land should be counted as
credits towards his bill.... Of course, this is presuming a pay-for-
consumption model like the one I was toying with above. A common
good system may work differently, and I'd love to hear further ideas
or explanations along that line.

>
[Snip]
>> As such, spelling out a position on my part may be counter-
productive;
>> I'm interested in what other people see as possible solutions to a
>> particular problem, and if I express a strong view at the outset,
some
>> folks may choose not to contribute.
>
> So far it seems to be just me :) I'd much rather enter into a
> dialogue of ideas rather than this questioning process. See my
> comments above.

It seems we may have generated a little interest at last; but
I'll try to lay off the questions a bit.

>
[SNIP]
>
>> But that wasn't really the point - the question really was "does a
>> property owner have the right to place an arbitrarily large
stress on
>> the habitats life support system?"
>> Heck, we haven't even gotten to ranchers and livestock yet,
nevermind
>> farmers....
>> We've got so much interesting material to cover here.
>
> The problem we're running into here is that you're asking a
> question, and you have unstated premises behind those questions
that
> we're unaware of. I'm not presuming, as you just indicated in your
> explanation, that there will be welfare bums, unemployed people,
> renters, landlords, unrestricted capitalism, etc.
>
> I'm thinking that is a static society everyone will have a job and
a
> place to live. Why would there be unemployed people? The same
amount
> of goods and services have to be produced. There are no export
> markets (because if you could export you could also emmigrate) so
> innovation is harder to fund for a static market, and policies
> cascade from there to insure a job for everyone.

Actually, what you've said about exports and emmigration isn't
true - emmigration is a permanent change of citizenship and
residence, and could be very difficult. Try emmigrating to
Australia, for example - heck, just getting a work visa is tricky as
hell. At the same time Australia participates in world trade - both
importing and exporting millions of tons of goods every year - and
does a booming tourist trade.
That aside, just because (uh oh - here we go on the economy
again) your population is stable doesn't mean your economy or labor
pool is static. Say an environmental engineer working down in the
LS core of the habitat sees a great way to up efficiency by 7%... he
could try to get a loan to start up his own company, or he could
sell his idea to someone else, or just hand it to his employer for a
fat bonus. Now two things happen - fewer employees are needed to
run the LS system, and you have a lay off, and you can increase the
allowed population of the habitat by about 7% - and those people
won't have previously assigned 'slots'. The employees who are layed
off could retrain, go to a competitor, fall back on secondary skills
to seek employment, or try to start their own businesses. Until
they did, you'd have unemployment.
But even the LS example above doesn't comment on one of your
assumptions that I think needs to be modified - the habitat will
take a certain number of skilled workers to run it, but that number
does NOT have to be the same number as the population of the
habitat. So you've got an Island One, as a fer'instance: population
near ten thousand, but a required staff of only maybe one thousand.
The other nine thousand are children, spouses, and entreprenuers.
Sure you'd like to keep unemployment down, but that doesn't mean
that every job done today will still exist in a hundred years.
And the statement about the same number of goods and services
has a weakness in it too - some time ago, people here on Terra were
using quills to write, because that was virtually the only way
anything got written down. The some bright guys invented pencils,
fountain pens, mechanical pencils, ball point pens, felt tip pins,
permanent markers - now people are writing more, and using less
quills. The old pencil industry has boomed, and passed its heyday.
Industries come and go, and whole job sectors with them. So, I
guess my point is that people won't necessarily still be using the
same types of products over the lifespan of the habitat - so the
goods (and jobs) available will fluctuate.

> The more I think about such a society the more "communistic" it
> seems to me. I'm moving away from the libertarian and anarchistic
> societies you alluded to earlier. In fact, I'm now curious to see
> how a case for libertarianism could be made.

(*Chuckle*) Me too - I've never really grokked how any
libertarian society would function; but I have encountered a few
people advocating a libertarian arrangement for a habitat. One of
the real potential strengths of a space-based civilization is that
every habitat can try a different approach to various problems; and
the winning approaches can be observed and adopted.

[SNIP]

>
>> What sort of society do you foresee a habitat being?
>
> Living under the axioms - communist/socialist with a managed
economy.
>
> Without the axioms - capitalist with a democratic type gov't but
> with differences from the sytems we know on Earth.

Interesting - a managed economy. I presume you think a
communism or socialism is a better choice where population growth is
curtailed because they are less responsive to pressures from the
citizenry? Trouble is, I'm not sure we should pick an economic
system which has never been shown to work; and as a political system
it usually just works out as some sort of hopped up autocracy. An
autocracy or despotism is a plausable choice politically, though.

>
>> We've already discussed western industrialized nations as a
possible
>> model for an orbital society, should we go from there?
>
> If we do, you'll have to chart a plausable rationale why
Westernized
> peoples will willingly immigrate to a Habitat that is going to
> impose these conditions on them.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else; but for me, I'd move from
the US to a habitat even knowing that my breeding would be
regulated. Now if they tried to control my sex life, that's a
different story.

> To stay within your axioms, I think we should stay away from
Western
> societal models, and just hope that whatever societal model we use
> has the same fertility characteristics of the West.
>
> This might be the well from which colonists are drawn:
> http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/wannabe.htm

The post is deliberatly pretty offensive, but as the reply
correctly points out: those with nothing to lose are going to be
attracted to the new frontier; and those who have established
themselves here and are doing well may well be a lot less
interested. I also agree with Mr Combs on another point - I do not
want to be excluded just because I am a westerner. And I think the
picture the poster paints is deliberatly overly grim; it is
certainly hard to take his "The first few generations in space will
live a hard, dangerous, confined life under conditions that will
make Alcatraz seem like a spa resort." comment seriously. I would
choose to go, and would take great satisfaction from planting the
grasses and trees, and building the mountains he talks about - but
that would mean a habitat bigger than everyone getting just ten
cubic meters of space. And while Alcatraz (which had GUARDS) was
confining, it was also designed as a punnishment for the most
hardened criminals the US prison system had - I certainly hope that
my friends and associates aren't that dangerous and anti-social. As
for whether or not Alcatraz had a wednesday night card game, I can't
comment; but I'd sure set one up (no betting, too easy to get
offended). Video mail to home, and e-mail around the world would
sure be a lot more accessible too.
Yeah, it'd be hard, but I'd go - and I think others from first
world countries would too.

>
>> What details do you need?
>
> Given your axioms, I'm tending to think that a communist society
> works the best for this dialogue. So let's stick with that because
> it makes the most sense with respect to restriction of freedoms,
> isolation, and managed economy. This way we'll both be on the same
> page and cut down on our unstated premises.

A despotism could also work, if restriction of freedoms and non-
responsiveness to the citizenry are your criteria; but I'm not sure
they need to be.

> I could use your guidance on how other "rights" will be
restricted.
> How does social status affect rights? Is there social mobility or
is
> your station in life determined when you are born? Will there be a
> stratification of genetics traits? How about stratification of
> classes? And anything else you think is pertinent.

I had not imagined any of the above would be necessary; with
the obvious exceptions for protecting the safety of the habitat. As
an (freedom of assembly) example, planning to meet a friend at the
movies is okay - planning to meet 3000 of them there for jumping
jacks probably isn't. I'd like to take the stance, though, that the
state is responsible for implementing and maintaining methods (where
possible) to compensate for the maximum shift in density and other
such eventualities.

>
[SNIP]
>> I submit that the answer is no, and that a habitat with a stable
>> population can experience steady, sustainable, economic growth.
>
> Look here for problems that Japan is having:
> http://www.hankooki.com/kt_op/200108/t2001082315415548110.htm
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1629737.stm
>
> Look here for Japanese GDP figures for 1996-98:
> http://www.jei.org/Archive/JEIR98/9823GDPtab.html
>
> Notice that the GDP was higher in 1996 than in 1998.
>
> Look here for Japanese population statistics:
> http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/japanc.htm
>
> Notice that the population grew over the 1996-98 period as the
> economy was shrinking.

(*sigh*) I thought you wanted to drop the economy issue?
Alrighty, let me look through the links....

The first link doesn't appear to support your argument at all,
laying the blame for Japans economic woes firmly at the door of
massive bad debt.

Quote:
Plunging land values, by 60 percent on average, shook the foundation
and creditworthiness of the majority of banking institutions.
[SNIP]
At the root of Japan's slowdown is a huge amount of bad debt,
estimated at $520 billion, held by Japanese banks, much of which is
the result of the collapsing value of real estate. Vast amounts of
tax income have been used to pop up debt-ridden, essentially
bankrupt financial institutions. Japan is staggering under one of
the heaviest debt burdens of any industrialized country.
End quote.

So Japan is in trouble, all right, but nowhere in the article
is declining or static population growth blamed. In fact, the
mechanisms presented seem very convincing and complete.

In the second link, the fifth and sixth paragraphs would tend
to support your claim that population growth dictates economic
growth. But the article goes on to say a few choice things about
the roots of the current depression in Japan.

Quote:
At the same time, falling prices that set in before the recession
have exacerbated the woes of the country.
[SNIP]
Then there is one other serious problem: Banks have had too many bad
loans to be confident of lending again.
[SNIP]
The problem with this [bailing out the banks] approach is that the
government does not want to be seen to be doing anything to bail out
banks who behaved with such wanton disregard of normal prudential
standards in the 1980s.

And the public do not want to help crony-capitalist institutions
that are now suffering from their own mistakes.
End Quote.

Not only that, but the accompanying chart of "Real GDP" shows a
crash in about 1990; while the fifth paragraph talks about the post-
war baby boomers in their fifties saving like crazy for their
retirements, it offers no explanation of the tremendous crash
thirteen years ago... was it the baby-boomers um.. something like
crazy, and it's all their fault? No actually, the explanation
offered for the disasterous crash at the end of the eighties is a
crash in property values.

So even this second link doesn't really make it clear that it
is really the demographics that are soley to blame - perhaps current
hardships could be seen as resulting from "wanton disregard of
normal prudential standards", or maybe it could be that "Banks have
too many bad loans" - and we know from the previous link just how
massive Japans indebtedness is. Saying that the demographics of the
Japanese population was the straw that broke the camels back, is
still making demographics a mere straw to the tremendous load of
other problems that Japan faces.

The third link is econo-speak, but talks about a two year
period between 1996 and early 1998. The gist of it is that Japans
economy is on the ropes. Nowhere do they mention population growth,
and population growth is not a factor listed on the linked chart.
Consumer spending, which might serve as a predictor of GDP or GNP in
the given period, doesn't even begin to stand in for demographic
data - there are a host of things which affect it outside of just
growth and age distribution.

The fourth link is a table of raw population numbers. Not much
to look at, nevertheless they seem to tend to undermine your
position again - population growth was never static or negative to
correspond to the big busts we know happened in this timeframe.
Maybe you can tell me what I am supposed to be looking for here?
And maybe show how it links static or shrinking population or
population growth to a static or shrinking economy; remember, having
a neat way to show that you have isolated population demographics or
dynamics as the single strongest factor is really what you need to
make your case.

> This population static orbital society will have not have the
> economic option of exporting because it doesn't have resources
that
> it can pull from its resource pool. A whole segment of its economy
> can't serve an export market, so those people will have to find a
> function elsewhere in the society.

Wow, suddenly you are taking the whole 'Closed system' very
seriously indeed. That's good. Not exactly what I had in mind, but
I'm not going to confuse anyone by redefining 'closed system'. But
please see my earlier note about the differences between emmigration
and exports. Suffice to say that whatever goods would have been
designed for export, would be balanced by a demand for certain
imports; if we use one to cancel the other (essentially saying that
the 'exports' sell domestically, just displacing all the 'imports')
I don't see that there is a problem. On a practical level, this
probably means that you will have a large number of cottage
industries to support the demands for variety that might otherwise
have been met with imports; the labor so used neatly accounts for
the labor lost from the one or two large export industries we're
waving away.

> I contend that this society will likely strive to insure full
> employment to lessen greivances in the society because of the
> already contentous intervention in the personal realm of
procreation.

I think holding to low unemployment numbers is a laudable goal,
whatever the reason. I'm not certain that I agree with your 'take'
on lessening greivances in society to 'make up for' population
policy. Maybe you could clarify what you mean by this, so I can get
a firmer grasp on the concept you are refering to.

> If steady employment is a goal, then a managed economy is the most
> likely vehicle to achieve that. To minimize the disruption to the
> workers and the economy, innovation and labor saving improvements
> will be discouraged unless the displaced workers are assured new
> placements or support in kind.

I don't have a whole lot of faith in managed economies, maybe
you could provide an example of an industrialized nation with a
managed economy and lower unemployment than, say, the US? This
isn't to say that I want to abolish safety nets against
underemployment, just that such 'workfare' or 'unemployment'
or 'employment office' plans do not have to be all pervasive, or
require a completely managed economy to work well.

> Seeing how it's likely that the displaced workers will probably be
> the least skilled, and any new jobs created will probably be at
the
> forefront of technology, there won't be a one-to-one job transfer.
> More likely will be a upward cascade which will require a
wholesale
> retraining of the workforce to make room for the previously
> unemployed to take the positions that are next lowest on the
ladder,
> and those people move upwards, etc. Of course I'm not discounting
> the complexity of such a process. It will not be linear and will
> probably have a significant time lag.

Nah. Within limits, I have tremendous faith in the ability of a
free labour market to find work for unemployed workers; if there is
a glut of unskilled labor, then look for employed unskilled laborers
to take a cut in pay, or be replaced by cheaper workers. The money
available to hire unskilled labor will then employ more of them;
perhaps taking up all the slack from a lay-off or maybe not. Or new
business could start up, now that labor is cheaper and so starting
costs lower....

> Considering the disruption that this may cause, it may be cheaper
to
> just pay benefits to the unemployed. Now you have unproductive
> citizens who are cognitavely unable to fill the emerging tech
> positions and you will eventually develop labor market
dislocations.

Wow. I thought I was an elitist. No, I don't think that all
newly created jobs or positions will always be highly technical
ones. If someone starts a new fim to manufacture "Wonder Widgets"
or some other super-technological item, then their company will
still need people in packaging, shipping, clerical work, sweeping
up, driving forklifts, emptying garbage cans... non-technical stuff,
or at least not uber-egghead forefront of technology stuff.

> An alternate policy is to discourage innovation in order to
prevent
> disruption to the full employment strategy.

In the case of a completely managed economy, you might be able
to get away with this - but if you've got even one free enterprise,
then good luck. Innovation often means increased efficiency - which
always means increased profits.

>> And why could I then not argue to the effect that limiting
>> every family to at least one child (but maybe no more than one)
is
>> not a violation of their rights under the same clause?
>
> That's what lawyers are for. Go ahead. I'm sure that China, if it
> cares what the world thinks, is probably arguing along those lines.

Ok, then that'll be my argument until someone shows me a better
one.

>> I don't actually have a society. Lets assume that I am
>> interested in policies that will work; I would prefer policies
which
>> are compassionate yet effective, but the first criteria has got
to be
>> "effectiveness".
>
> OK, that's a good starting point. As to the compassionate
criterion,
> I'd say that some good ole fashioned societal engineering may work
> wonders. Propagandize the values you want to impart. Make the
> attainment of goals equate to compassion. Lead the people to
> conclude that unlicensed children are a theft from fellow
> citizen's "rights."

Alrighty; I'll admit I think this could work in many
situations, but it would be slow to set up, and require constant
maintenance in any situation where you contact with the rest of
civilization.

>> If you posit a fine, then you really say that rich folks who can
pay
>> the fine are allowed more children than poor people. And if
someone is
>> as "Rich as Creosote"
>
> You don't mean the chimney gunk do you? Probably Croesus :)

(*Grin*) Yep, the very same gunky chimney stuff - or at least
spelled the same way. I was in a silly mood and tried to slip in a
Terry Pratchett reference, but you caught me. Yes, the expression
on Terra is "Rich as Croesus"; in his humor series of 'Diskworld'
novels, it becomes "Rich as Creosote" - who you actually meet at one
point.

>> and can easily pay the fines with absolutely neglible effort, is
the
>> fine really a penalty at all? What motivations might a person
have for
>> breaking the law? If they just want more descendants, then
what? Would
>> any penalty be a sufficent deterent?
>
> For these very reasons I don't think you could translate a Western
> Liberal Democracy into your scenario. A communist society is
better.

Well, crime and punishment both exist in modern western
societies; some issues certainly are better handled than others.
Which is why I asked what sorts of punishments could be used that
would be effective - and remembering that we'd prefer compassionate
and just ones, as well.

> As others on this list have pointed out, you could harvest
> sperm/eggs at puberty, then sterilize then people. They apply for
a
> license, and their genetic material is released to them.

Ok, this system has the advantage of cutting out casual cheating,
and reduces the number of honest accidents too. And I think it was
Lucio who brought it up. It isn't flawless, though - it is
vulnerable to deliberate tampering, and if the genetic material is
lost, your civilization is dead. Can you suggest any other
systems? Or improvements on this one?

>> Ok, so you've got this "extra" child alive in the habitat
>> somewhere - someone else is going to have to give up the chance to
>> have a child to make up for the overage. How can this be done
fairly?
>
> Don't let it happen in the first place. If you have no controls
> people will always be trying to game the system.

That's not really an answer.

>> Pressure the politicians to 'fudge' the numbers a bit to allow a
>> higher population - thus eating into the safety factor built into
the
>> life support system?
>
> That's exactly the problems you find with Democracy. The citizens
> can vote themselves anything they want if they have the votes and
> even if it isn't in their long term interests. I don't have to
> provide any links for this - just look at pretty much every
> democratic state in the world.

Okay, granted. The electorate seems remarkably self-serving,
and rather stupid about its own long term interests. So, can you
think of any way of insulating something from the demands of the
electorate?

>> Besides death, exile, or a fine, what other penalties could be
>> imposed?
>
> Don't let it happen in the first place.

Once again, this isn't really an answer. And there is an easy
answer obviously left off of the above list: imprisonment. It
wouldn't take any real effort to at least notice that, would it?
There are other punishments, too - but I don't guess your really
interested in the actual topic at hand, which is a shame considering
all the time I've wasted on your economics cr.. issues.

[SNIP]

> You were the one who laid out the axioms. You want to examine a
> sustainable society that has a static population. That means that
> you need to provide for the young and the elderly who are not in a
> position to economically fend for themselves. You have no
> immigration to smooth out the bumps in your demographics.
Therefore
> you must plan your demographic makeup. You want to avoid the "baby
> boom" and "baby bust" that can happen. You don't want to be faced
> with a shortage of teachers, then a surplus. A shortage of
> pediatricians, then a surplus. A surplus of day care providers
when
> you need an increasing army of geriatric care specialists. If you
> keep your population model "well tuned" then you have just the
right
> amount of people coming into the professions when they are needed.
> You also have the right proportion of the populace being able to
> support with their taxes the young and the elderly.

Once again, were back to pensions. And despite so many of the
links you've provided deploring the utter folly of pay-as-you-go
pensions, here you are advocating them. If you think they're
important enough to dominate the discussion, then at least put a
modicum of thought into improving them, before suggesting them.

> What do you do when this order is compromised by the elderly not
> dying of natural causes as your actuarial tables ahve predicted.
You
> could let them continue living and curtail the births, but then
> you're tinkering with the well-oiled machine and will have worker
> shortages in the future.

Okay - so obviously depending on actuarial tables can be a
source of inaccuracy. Steps can be taken NOW to build in safety
mechanisms to avoid precisely the disaster you describe - what are
they? Well, maybe I know and maybe I don't - but this whols
dicussion is supposed to centered around exactly this sort of issue,
and you have yet to advance any useful suggestions. Instead, Im
about 75% of the way through your post - after cutting about 15 to
20% of it out, twelve hours after starting my reply, and your major
focus is still demographics as a driver for the economy and doom and
gloom forecasts. It's a little frustrating. If you can SEE a
problem, why don't you try making suggestions to fix it? Why does
it always have to come down to "and-that's-why-a-stable-population-
can-never-work" lines of argument?

> Why are you taking this view as a personal insult? You leave the
> axioms so vague and don't engage in an exchange of ideas but just
> want people's opinions on how things will turn out. You may think
it
> a cheesy SCI-FI prediction, but I look at it as an exercise of
GIGO.
> Garbage in, garbage out. You set very restrictive conditions and
you
> should expect some very restrictive outcomes. Don't get offended
at
> this statement. I'm not denigrating the thought experiment,
> otherwise I wouldn't be spending this time engaging in it. The
GIGO
> refers to the process and isn't a value judgement.

I'm just getting frustrated - you seem to insist on being
contrary enough to constantly attack the "we need to find ways of
stabilizing the population" line, when that is the ONLY part this
discussion which is on topic!
It's especially frustrating because I've spent time tolerating
your contrarian attacks on stable populations, read the links you've
provided as evidence - which they weren't - only to have you state
that you can't be bothered to find appropriate ones! After reading
and analyzing your links, I then give you my takes on them, and why
I think they fail to support the economic stagnation of stable
populations - and without even more than a mild occasional reminder
that that isn't the issue I wanted to focus on when I started this
thread, which I have made painstakingly clear from the very first
post - yet here I am with a damn economics novella! Others have
gotten on topic with their very first post! Why do you need an
economic growth model, before you even consider the topic?
And why, on the rare occasions you do deign to address policies
related to the topic, do you seem so determined not to expend a
single iota of energy on original thought? You've mentioned Lucio's
idea - but didn't develope it. You had an EASY potential answer to
the punishment question, with plenty of room for brainstorming, and
yet you provided an absolute non-answer. Twice. And lately you've
started in on the collapse of the labor pool because of the absence
of an export market! Good greif!

> As for my sarcastic comment, it wasn't intended as a sarcasm, nor
as
> an insult. You're inferring something that wasn't implied. The
> comment was meant as a summary of the analysis that preceded it,
and
> to indicate that there was no malice intended I purposely placed
> a :)

It fooled me because you seemed to be deliberately building a
straw-man; I was affronted that you'd think I would be vulnerable to
such a cheap trick, or that anybody else wouldn't spot it. I guess
its easy to mis-communicate when we're so completely isolated from
each others tone, body language, and other subtle social signals.

> If you don't take it seriously, then that's your perogative. If
you
> view it as infantile fantasy, then there's little point in
> continuing, because I see the NEED to manage demographics within
the
> society as means of insuring long term sustainability under the
> conditions of your axioms. Again I return to pension schemes like
> social security because they are perfectly illustrative of
> generational institutions that must be maintained and that go
askew
> when the demographic assumptions change. Start the scheme with 35,
> and end up with 2, workers supporting each retiree. Plan on each
> retiree living an eaverage of 5 years beyond retirement and end up
> with the average retiree living 15 years beyond retirement. How do
> you make this sustainable?

By following the advice in your own links - scrap pay-as-you-go-
pensions. Easy.

> The problems of this society will be profoundly greater in scope
> with respect to the issue of sustainability. Careful attention
will
> have to be paid that the demographic assumptions are correct and
> that they are maintained.
>
> You can plan for births but you can't plan for deaths and if your
> population must remain static, then to avoid euthanasia you'll
have
> to curtail births, and there goes the fine-tuned instrument that
was
> your society. Yous demographic assumptions will all start to
unravel
> and the results of this will cascade though the years and cause
> havoc.

You haven't shown this, except on a straw-man. And I disagree
that regulating "curtailing" births would be the doom of society.
If, as a cheap and easy example that I've already brought up once,
you allowed a conception only following a corresponding death - then
you'll never find yourself with too many babies to keep the habitat
sustainable. True, you might end up knee deep in babies if the
majority of your population gets killed off - but the die off is the
problem, not the babies. And even if they are all born at the exact
same instant, they won't all die at the exact same instant... so the
trend will oscillate a bit around the ideal, but will eventually
smear out down to an average.
As I said, I'd already mentioned this once before in a previous
post - but your attacking the very possible existence of a stable
population on grounds it could already solve. That's why I'm
frustrated - you could have easily seen this if you'd wanted to.

>
[SNIP]
>
>> I'd love to hear some creativity though. Here's an only slightly
less
>> repugnant idea - ask for volunteers and compensate their estates.
>> Every person who steps forward dies via the most humane method at
hand,
>> and their beneficiaries receive a considerable financial trust?
Better
>> than shoving the oldest person in the habitat, kicking and
screaming,
>> out the airlock - until you run out of LS problems, ain't it?
>> It took me about two minutes to think of it - given an hour or
two, and
>> a whole Spacesettlers-at-Yahoo group of people working on it,
can't We
>> do better still?
>
> It's a solution, but is it the optimum one?

I just said it was a solution, and made a point of asking for
improvements. Of course it's not the optimal one!

> You may have someone who
> is younger and still productive willing to commit this form of
> suicide but the society will have lost that person's productivity
> and gained the extra life-span for the benefit of the oldest, and
> possibly, the most infirm. Now you're trading societal wealth for
> increasing the lifespan of those at the margin. For that person on
> the margin to gain a few more years, someone else in society has
> given up, perhaps decades of their life, and perhaps years of
> economic productivity as well. The State has to pay to create a
slot
> for a new-borne. The unfortunate volunteer is tempted by the
reward
> and the very altruism they are displaying by volunteering may be
> better used within the society by helping the living. Those who
are
> less altruistic remain alive. You're now selecting out for
altruism
> in an evolutionary respect, and over time I'd expect this auction
> mechanism to become less effective.

This is considerably better. I'll note, though, that
the "killing people" option should be a last resort - used in crisis
situations where efforts have (obviously unsuccessfully) been made
to avert it. I certainly am not advocating doing this every
weekend! As for the "old and infirm" angle, I developed this idea
further, but it seems to have gotten snipped.

> Imagine that you are a teenager witnessing this "auction" and your
> parents are beside you. They don't for a moment consider the
offer,
> and they denigrate the volunteer for giving up on life so easily.

Anyone who could talk smack about people willing to lay down
their lives so that everyone else can live, especially while it's
happening, ought to be next out the damn 'lock! Of course, you
propose a possible solution in the next paragraph.

> You take on this philosophy with ever more resoluteness at each
such
> auction as do the other observers, and this passes down through
the
> generations. The "bribe" continually grows and becomes evermore
> expensive for society to offer, and all as a means of keeping the
> oldest people alive for a few more years.

Old does not mean useless; and if your elderly survive, then
they don't really have that much longer to live anyhow - so you'll
be getting their LS resources back soon anyway!

> Contrawise, the propaganda machine can color the end of
> life "euthanasia" exit as the noble choice.

See? You've proposed a solution - but only in defense of your
own form of euthanasia, which I find to be a little odd.

> You'll know when you're
> making your exit. You can plan for it. It's not when you're in the
> prime of your life like you refer to "Logan's Run" but at a time
> when your body is starting to fail you, or already has, you are
> consuming more medical resources than when you were younger, you
are
> no longer working and adding to the wealth and well being of your
> society. You realize that the medical resources you are consuming
> are far in excess per capita to those people who are younger. Look
> to the growing movement of "Right to Die" organizations for a look
> at changing atitudes towards euthanasia. All this fictional
society
> requires is an atitude shift towards euthanasia being a noble act.

It's a far cry from "Euthanasia for the hopelessly infirm who
want it" to "Kill everyone at 60" - or whatever arbitrary age you
choose. What about someone who reaches the death age in perfect
health? They could have another twenty years ahead of them, while
the brain-dead twenty-something in a permanent coma still has plenty
of time left. I think assuming a uniform level of disability at a
particular age is a gross oversimplification. And as for folks
looking for loopholes, who would adjust to the loss of their well-
loved grandparent better: A person who went Kayaking with their
grandparent every weekend, and had deep insightful discussions on
complex issues, or the person who went to the nursing home every
weekend, and talked at their grandparent in hopes that they might be
recognized for an instant, or even be understood?
I'll submit to you that the folks in the second case will be
far less motivated to find loopholes for grandpa, and will be far
more accepting that it was time to end his life of suffering, than
the folks in the first case.

> The rules have to be understood and scrupulously observed. Kind of
> like the Draft is supposed to work. As soon as you start exempting
> the Senator's children, the college students, etc, then it will
fall
> apart.
>
>> Would you have standardized, universal testing? I'd prefer a
>> little prevention though, instead of wholesale slaughter of any
>> kind.
>
> Testing for what? If it's who has to submit to euthanasia, then
I'd
> think it makes most sense to give everyone the opportunity to live
> life as long as possible. Don't shorten one citizen's life in
order
> to prolong another's by using some means of testing. This way the
> wealthy, the healthy, the intelligent, the athletic will be able
to
> circumvent the process just like the Senator's son bypassed the
> Draft. Things start to fall apart when they aren't fair and there
> are exemptions. The universal inevitability of a finite life-span
is
> hard to find an exemption for.

Yes, and equally hard to find a justification for. What about
folks who die early? Will you credit their heirs with their unused
time? Or is this "everyone gets equal time' just a bunch of hooey -
because the person who dies early has obviously been shorted,
cheated - especially in a murder case. Shouldn't they be
compensated some way? How better than to grant their unused life to
their estate? Then how do you prevent murder for the intention of
inheriting extra life?

>
[SNIP]
>
>> I guess I assumed that any habitat colonized would
>> try to set up a constitutional republic, but feel free to posit
>> anything plausible.
>
> We may be in disagreement here. I could see what you propose if at
> the outset people think that life can continue in orbit as it does
> on Earth. Then when they realize that things are different,
they'll
> have to change the mode of government and the norms and mores of
> society to adjust to the new conditions.
>
> If the axioms are in place when the society is formed, then I
can't
> see how a republic can work. Knowing the loss of freedom that the
> citizen's will have to endure will keep many interested immigrants
> firmly in Mother Terra's gravity grasp. Only those who see this as
> an improvement to their lives will seek to immigrate.
>
> TangoMan

The first habitats, especially, will fill up quick despite any
restrictions they enact.. there are too many people who want to go,
or who want to be anywhere but where they are right now. I'd go.
And I'll accept that, of course, any society in a habitat will
change over time - and likely in ways we don't foresee, because we
cannot be sure what types of challenges they'll be facing. But I
fail to understand how you can dismiss the possibility of starting
out as a republic so casually. In the US, people are less free
than they were one hundred years ago. Does this loss of liberty
render the US unworkable? No, just a little less comfortable. Just
about the same thing can be said of every western, post-industrial
nation... and yet they continue to function, after a fashion.

The length of this post is getting unweildy; please be warned
that I am going to snip considerably in the future - I cannot afford
to spend so much time on a single post! It's ~48 kB!

Joe.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
> On Thursday 02 October 2003 13:28, avatar643 wrote:
> (...)
>> Can we discuss these seperately? Would you accept or
>> advocate a government controlling its population size through
>> establishing a system of financial rewards and disincentives?
>> How effective do you forsee such a plan being? Are there any
>> possible loopholes or potential abuses that you could forsee?
>
> As I said before, there *are* already governments doing this
> financial reward/punishment thing to encourage population growth.
> Italian government for instance. Interestingly, there are also
> *companies* doing that too - a company in Japan awards a prize of
> $10K per child to the employees that conceive more than two
> children. See http://www.overpopulation.org/older.html

I was aware of some sort of program in Singapore, where high
earning families are given incentives to have more children; but
didn't realize the Italian government also had an anti-low
population policy. The corporate case was entirely unexpected!

> I accept *and* advocate governments taking measures against both
> over and under population. Both carry a series of practical
> problems, and practical problems need practical solutions.
>
> However, in the underpopulation case, I don't know how efficient
> the incentives exemplified above are - I would advocate something
> more aggressive like paying *a salary* per each children. The paid
> family model... But then we have a resource allocation problem:
> governments dealing with underpopulation problems are usually cash
> -strapped because they have to sustain the elders; so, how to pay
> for new children?

Obviously, where the cost of having and raising a child is a
barrier or deterent to choosing to conceive, any incentive must
ofset that cost enough to lower or remove the barrier or deterence
factor. Considering the costs, US $10000 doesn't seem like much.
But on the bright side, just because you have the state paying
incentives (either once or continously per child) doesn't mean that
the state has to shoulder the whole cost of the child - and if the
incentives are given as tax credits, then you remove the burden of
actually collecting and redistibuting the incentive money. Tax
credits will still cost you money, of course, in the form of lost
revenue.... But I'd like to submit that paying for the elderly
doesn't have to be a major expense for the government - if you scrap
pay-as-you-go pension schemes, and replace them with individually
funded (maybe with a modest matching plan from the government, and
certainly tax free until final withdrawal) retirement accounts,
almost the entirity of this expense can be shifted from the
government. I think this was put forward as a solution to the
currently exhaustively expensive pay-as-you-go plans in use around
the world in a recent link to the economist newspaper in this thread.

>
>> In the case of the corporate habitat - would such a habitat be
>> subject to any governmental laws, or could the corporation rule by
>> fiat? If the companies - and their habitats - are answerable to
>> (for example) the laws of the country they are incorporated in,
>> then how do you ensure compliance?
> (...)
>
> Ah, this issue is a wasp nest (as we say in Brazil). Even muddier
> than the population control thing... Well, assuming that the High
> Frontier will be boosted by private companies rather than
> governments (and I do believe in that assumption) then much likely
> the companies will have the will *and* the power to enforce laws
> in their colonies. "Base countries" would likely be non-existant,
> because big companies are becoming increasingly transnational and
> at some time perhaps they will be *meta*national. However, that
> does not mean that they can do anything that they want, because:
> if they do something that is too unpopular (for instance, mass
> -killing employees that committed some "crime") then people
> elsewhere will buy less from that company. A question of public
> image.

Well, even todays biggest transnational companies are
constrained by the laws of their base countries, and they must all
have base countries by the simple fact that there isn't much
territory on Terra which is not controlled by a national government
of some sort. If the habitats are built and maintained (hardly a
given, but possible) by Terran governments, then this pattern is
continued.
If the first two (or several) habitats are 'national' habitats
and any possibility of conflict exists, then perhaps corporate
habitats are unlikely - because one of the functions of a government
is to maintain armed forces to protect it's territory. A corporate
habitat - to avoid the risk of being seized by one national force or
other as a first step in any conflict - would have to undertake the
(potentially) very expensive step of training and equipping (and,
almost by definition, unprofitable) military forces. If the
corporation wants to save this expense (and maybe other
infrastructure expenses, like fire departments and police) they
could simply agree to accept the soveriegnty of a national power in
any new habitat - in exchange for the national power running all the
essential services and military. The corp could then get on with
the business of turning a profit without these expenses and
complications.
Of course, if the first few habitats are commercial, then who
knows?

>
> Lucio

Joe.

On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 08:42 PM, avatar643 wrote:

> Well, even todays biggest transnational companies are
> constrained by the laws of their base countries, and they must all
> have base countries by the simple fact that there isn't much
> territory on Terra which is not controlled by a national government
> of some sort.

There is another reason. Corporations are legal entities where the
investors only risk the money they have put into the corporation. No
matter what happens, you can only lose what you've put in. Not all
companies are like this, Lloyds of London is a counter example. Now,
who grants (and enforces) this lack of liability? Government. In
addition, without government there is no one to protect your company
against physical attack (a very effective way of eliminating
competition).

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 Thu, 9 Oct 2003 at 09:02:33 -0700 Al Globus wrote:

> On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 08:42 PM, avatar643 wrote:
>
>> Well, even todays biggest transnational companies are
>> constrained by the laws of their base countries, and they must all
>> have base countries by the simple fact that there isn't much
>> territory on Terra which is not controlled by a national government
>> of some sort.
>
> There is another reason. Corporations are legal entities where the
> investors only risk the money they have put into the corporation. No

> matter what happens, you can only lose what you've put in. Not all
> companies are like this, Lloyds of London is a counter example. Now,

> who grants (and enforces) this lack of liability? Government. In
> addition, without government there is no one to protect your company
> against physical attack (a very effective way of eliminating
> competition).

[SNIP]

Thanks for the observation Al, and it should also be mentioned that
business depend upon the pre-existence of a certain amount of legal
structure; government provides that structure. If no contract law
exists, no meaningful contracts may be formed... and business becomes
essentially impossible. The only way a corporation could do without a
government in one of its colonies is to replace all the structure that
governments provide - and to do so with at least a minimum of
credibility as far as impartiality goes.

>On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 03:16 AM, avatar643 wrote:
>
>> Your right about sterilization
>> setting off political correctness warning bells, too. (Not that I
>> personally practice political correctness, but I can certainly hear
>> the objections already).
>
> I think its a bit more than political correctness. If you want to
> sterilize yourself go ahead. If you try to sterilize me, expect a
> fight.

[Snip]

Relax; no-body is going to come around to your house demanding
your testicles on a platter... at least nobody from MY group (*intended
as humor*). Rather, if population control issues mandate limiting the
number of conceptions, and if mandatory sterilization seems the only
viable and acceptable solution, then it would likely take the form of a
sub-dermal implant.
I should note that everyone who has taken steps to prevent
conception during sexual activity has already voluntarily and
temporarily sterilized themselves - after all, that is what a condom
does. Or birth control pills. Or an IUD. Or any number of other - and
probably less effective - options available at your local chemist.
If memory serves - before IUDs were withdrawn from the market
here in the US - they enjoyed a fair bit of popularity despite the fact
that they could not be removed without a visit to the doctor!
So sterilization isn't really the bogeyman that opponents to
population control may make it out to be - though, as with all human
endeavors, they may be more than a few problems to work out wrt who
decides, who gets more children, and what legal measures deal with
infractions.