> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:20:31 -0000
> From: "victoriatangoman"
> Subject: Population Control Policy Issues
>
>> --- 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.

Nah - you just made digging the other factors out unimportant. 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.
You have just said that population growth is 'a significant contributor to
economic growth' - ergo, not the only factor. That there are other factors
that also contribute to economic growth makes my position - that economic
growth is still possible with zero population growth - all the more
defensible. All of this is, of course, not the topic I had hoped to focus
on.

>>> 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?

Heck, I dunno - you said it; look at the quoting above. I was just
happy that you seemed to be thinking on topic for a moment - I haven't
actually expressed a position on your suggestions yet, because you haven't
really elaborated on them. I think that bidding for children may very well
be unworkable for colonists; plutocracies are often seen as repulsive;
though I think some argument could be made for such a system from a sort of
'practical meritocray' angle - a 'those who acheive more and can afford to
support children will have more children' sort of argument. I don't know if
thats morally (if morals apply) or ethically or genetically sound though.

>> 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."

You're kidding, right? I can just imagine the kinds of coniptions that
Libertarians and Anarchists would have over this issue. Needless to say,
any societies they contructed would, to the limits of their ability to do
so, reflect their philosophies. Anarchist societies - if they could exist -
would need to go through all sorts of contortions to impose population
control policies; and may not have any other sorts of structure at all.
Libertarian societies fare only a little better; but could probably sneak
population control in as a this-has-to-be-national-level policy. Needless
to say, there is a good chance that every township or community within a
libertarian habitat would have it's own approach of varying effectiveness;
this jumble of varying social structures would certainly affect the
proceation 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.

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.

> 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?

>> Should breeding contracts be assumed to be a life support bill?
>
> I don't know what you mean by life support bill?

It's an easy concept. It takes resources to keep a life support system
running. Resources cost money. It takes skilled labour to keep a life
support system running. Skilled labour costs money. It takes energy to
keep a life support system running. Energy costs money. It takes machinery
to produce the resources and energy to keep a life support system running.
That machinery costs money. It takes resources, energy, and skilled labor
to build, maintain, and run that machinery. All of which - you guessed it -
costs money. Any or all of the above can be supplied by various business,
which employ people - their goal is to make enough money to pay their
employees and have a profit left over. All of the above may - only perhaps,
not certainly will - get cheaper once a space based civilization gets
established; but cheaper ain't free.
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? If people pay individually, what
about welfare cases? Do you pay daily? Hourly? One huge lump sum for
your whole lifetime? Would saying that parents would pay for their
childrens life support consumption be a fair place to start?
So, with regards to your question - does paying more towards the life
support expenses for the entire habitat entitle someone to have more
children?

>> 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 . .

(*Smile*) Yeah - "Farmer In The Sky", great story. I always prefered
his shorter stuff, and I think that was a novelette. Also really loved "The
Menace From Earth". It's too bad we don't have more of that type of
Sci-Fi - less Gee-Whiz and more human interest in a believable sci-fi
background. If we could get even one season of this on air - even if it was
such dreck as "As the Habitat Turns" or "Orbital Hospital" - we might find a
public more accepting of the high frontiers vision. And now, back to your
regularly programmed E-mail...

> 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.

Whoa nelly - I think you just snipped a whole passel of questions that I
had asked. Notice the comma at the end? Dead giveaway, that. I asked what
rights do property owners have in terms of imposing loads on the habitats
life support system - and gave several reductio ad absurdum (spelling?)
examples.... I'd like to see your answers to those questions, especially in
light of the explanation I gave above re: life support costs.

>> 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.

Um. Yeah. But this is exactly the line of questioning which I am
interested in following, and getting feedback from the group on. 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. I do have veiws, and I have tried to think my way through this
rationally, but there's always something to be learned from other peoples
insights.

>> 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?

Easy - buy TWO condos. Then find more-than-one person who cannot afford
a single condo, and charge them as much as you can squeeze. The more, the
merrier - it's called unrestricted capitalism. As for where you find anyone
who can't afford one condo, try the employment office - lots of folks there
down on their luck. If you get men and women living together in close
quarters you'll probably start having to deal with children too - just
charge more. Voila! Instant slums. 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.

>> 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?

My apologies - my questions are still here. And you've even given a
grudging answer to one - you are apparently of an empiricist bent; and may
agree that a persons rights are defined by the society they live in. If
that is the case, then - as a starting point - that's great.

> 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.

It's just a colony in an orbital habitat, with no more goal than any
existing country; I guess to survive would be a good one. It's like trying
to keep score in international politics - how many points behind the leader
is the fourth runner up? What sort of society do you foresee a habitat
being? We've already discussed western industrialized nations as a possible
model for an orbital society, should we go from there? As for details, they
are in short supply - since orbital habitats are conjectural at best at the
moment - but we could make up any that we feel we need, within the limits of
plausiblity. What details do you need? Would you feel more comfortable
pretending that the habitat is a carbon copy of your native country, with
airlocks? We can do that, but I'd like to know which country you pick....

>>> 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

Okay - the link talks about economic growth being affected by the
quality and quantity of four major factors - land resources, capital
resources, enterprise resources, and human resources. They note that
population growth CAN lead to economic growth - in that more young workers
entering the workforce CAN be beneficial. They also note that population
growth can have a negative effect on GDP.... They say that quality (as
opposed to just quantity) of human resources is also important, and
improving the skills of your labor force is an important factor in economic
growth.
This is a long way from your (triple indent) statement above - where you
certainly do seem conflate population and economic growth. Or were you
saying that economic growth is good for the economy? Bit of a tautology,
that. You then go on to say "growth is a motivator" - and an observer could
be forgiven if they thought you meant the same kind of (presumably
population) growth as refered to in your previous sentence - and "stasis is
limiting and depressing"; obviously making an economic argument.
Good link though. Lets take a look at the land resources in a habitat
as a closed system - obviously limited, and no new quantity being created;
but technology may slowly improve it's quality. Human resources are what I
was hoping to discuss, though not in economic terms - and if we take stasis
of population NUMBER as a given, it does not follow that the quality of
human resources must also decline. Also, please note that the human
resources refered to at the link refers to workers - automation (workers who
are machines) does not factor into their reasoning. Is there any reason to
assume that capital and enterprise resources will somehow automatically be
negative in a habitat with a stable population? I submit that the answer is
no, and that a habitat with a stable population can experience steady,
sustainable, economic growth. If it happens to be slower growth than the
boom-and-bust pacific rim countries, I can only say that you take what you
can get - and a little economic growth is a far cry better than utter
economic collapse.

>> 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

I'll do you one better. Here are the articles.
Article 16
1.. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race,
nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They
are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its
dissolution.
2.. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of
the intending spouses.
3.. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 25
1.. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health
and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to
security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old
age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2.. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.
All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social
protection.
So article 16.1 says eveyone is entitled to marry and have at least one
child. No mention about a maximum limit though. All article 25.2 is about
is protecting single mothers/widows and their child(ren) from being denied
the minimum standard of living spelled out in article 25.1. Again, no
mention about limiting the maximum number of children a person is allowed to
have.
By the way, I am laughing my ass off at the expense of the UN right
now - I think it is funny that it is spelled out as a fundamental human
right that nobody should every be a subject in a monarchy, or in a
paternalistic tribe in say, the amazonian rain forest. Check out article
21.3. Isn't Saudi Arabia a member of the UN? I've gotta wonder what their
royal family thinks of this.

>> 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.

Ooh - "rationed and controlled". Very harsh terms. I will note though,
that in the UN declaration given above, there is no mention on the maximum
number of times adults can choose to marry; yet many countries have laws
against polygamy and polyandry. In that sense, a basic human right is
rationed by the State. Does this constitute control though? I mean, as
long as the state doesn't tell you who you will marry, is it a violation?
Why or why not? 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?

>> 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.

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".

>> 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.

Several of my cousins grew up being bounced around among state run
orphanages and foster-homes. It was not a good way to grow up. Letting an
illicit child stay with its parents may render your population control
policies utterly ineffective - everyone could flout the law at will, knowing
that they could have as many "extra" children as they wanted. 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" 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?
Ok, so you've got this "extra" child alive in the habitat somewhere -
somone 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? Hypothetically, a young
couple, no children yet, have been waiting for their turn to come up - and
after being given the go-ahead, are told that their permission has to be
withdrawn because of some law-breaker - how would you feel? What sorts of
legal recourse do you see such a couple trying? And lets assume for just a
moment that they want a child of their own, not an adoption baby. Go from
here - would you expect them to hire a lawyer, seeking punitive damages? Or
maybe start a petition to some new law made? 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?

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

Well that is certainly true. The parents are more responsible than the
child is. If one were arguing from the point of veiw of a (*ahem*)
objectivist habitat (not saying I am or am not - just an angle for examples
sake) then what practical trade-offs are you making by losing two working
age adults in favor of a child of unknown potential? Actually, I think I'd
favor deportation - anyone who cannot conduct themselves in accordance with
the rules society establishes should probably not be allowed to stay.
Trouble is, I have specifically ruled that out... you know, the whole
"Closed society approaching a (too darn large) population crisis" thing.
But again what punishment would be effective, just, and compassionate? I
mean, OK - a fine in the amount of the life support that the child will
consume is a start; but that is something you'd expect parents to pay
anyway - so it's not really a punishment for them. Where does this leave
us? Besides death, exile, or a fine, what other penalties could be imposed?

>> 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.

Thank you. I actually do have an ulterior motive though. I hope - slim
though that hope may be - that we can reach some consensus, or acheive some
insights into how a population in a habitat could be managed without
devolving into a despotism of the worst kind; and that when a habitat is
colonized, some measure of the wisdom we find will help it to avoid the most
obvious pitfalls.

> 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.

Yes - and if I was interested in bad sci-fi from the 1970s then I'd
advertise that from the outset. I understand that forced euthanasia IS a
possible solution, but having it presented as
this-obviously-is-the-only-way-your-scenario-can-ever-come-out,-aren't-I-so-
clever-Mr-smartypants attitude as evinced by your sarcastic "How's that for
a pessimistic veiw of the future?:) " question makes it - and you - hard to
take seriously. It was a work of fiction, design to present a deliberately
horrific future - and that's what you dredge up as a model? And then act
SMUG about it? I think I may have been going easy on you you to merely call
it an infantile fantasy!

> 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.

Yeah - but here you are overlooking something so trivially easy to spot
as a solution instead of euthanasia, that once again I don't think you are
really putting much energy into trying to think of possible solutions. If
controlling conception is less objectionable than killing people, then just
don't give permission to conceive until someone dies.... It ain't a perfect
solution, and I can already see at least one hole in it; but I'd appreciate
it if you'd think about it.

> 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.

I don't advocate emmigration as a solution. Certainly, in a perfect
world, people should be able to choose to leave a habitat at any time -
provided, of course, they are not fleeing from justice. But the situation
is, and has been "In a closed system approaching a (too darn big) population
crisis..."; and I have always assumed that the people living in the habitat
are permanent colonists. Where have I indicated differently?

>> 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?

Oh, have fun being righteous. 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 a hour or
two, and a whole Spacesettlers-at-Yahoo group of people working on it, can't
we do better still?

>> 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.

I've never met the collective, and I'm not sure I trust the state.
Whatever criteria get devised need to be damn near bulletproof to prevent
tampering. Would you have standardized, universal testing? I'd prefer a
little prevention though, instead of wholesale slaughter of any kind.
Remember a closed system APPROACHING a (too darn big) population crisis; and
stopping or slowing conception rates to get the population growth to stasis
or negative levels is allowed - but so far I haven't seen a serious
discussion of the relative merits of the various possible schemes for doing
that. We can do that though, if you'd like - that is the area I'd hoped to
focus on. But IF a crisis came about anyway? Livestock and pets first, on
a voluntary basis. Then a lottery - down to essential breeding stock. Then
humanVolunteers. If that wasn't enough, convicts. After that? Hopeless
medical cases. After that? It gets harder - but I think I'd have a lottery
amongst the retirees and disabled - folks who have already left the
workforce - with the exception of child-bearing capable women. If that
wasn't enough? The work force indiscrimately and the folks left out of the
last lottery, until you get down to essential services - and after that,
children. I would hate every minute of it, and maybe you can suggest other
priorities, but off the top of my head, if I was forced into a position
where killing was the only answer, that's how I think I might answer it.
And yes, I'd take part in the lotteries, and piss myself in fear as I walked
to the airlock - and I'd appreciate an escort.
The Lotteries would have to be very public, and the tiles drawn should
specify the living - and be read simultaneously by a randomly selected
committee - folks unlikely to collude to fix the lottery.
So, I'd rather we find a way now to avoid ever having to made that hard
decision about who dies; but if such a decision did fall to me, then I like
to think I'd have the clarity of purpose to make it, instead of shirking my
duty. And you?

>> 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 folks were really that committed to living in a society with a stable
population, then you'd never get into this mess. Better assume that folks
will break the rules to get an advantage. And you are right - anyone who
flouts the law and gets away with it loses respect for the law, as does
everyone who sees them; that's trouble.

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

You did, in your obviously loaded "Logan's Run" scenario -

Begin Quote:
>>> 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
End Quote.

Or am I reading too much into the smug tone there?

>> 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.

Hey, good - we're on solid philosophical ground here; and as it happens,
we agree. At least, I am of a empiricist bent - and believe that the social
contract theory makes very good sense. But there are other veiwpoints too -
and we haven't had a transcendentalist weigh in on this yet.

> 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.

From my original post:
It seems reasonable to conclude that population control will be a vitally
important issue in any habitat, especially when the limits of the life
support system are being reached. So, what measures would be rational, with
regards to limiting the population? Can it be done without continuous
governmental intrusion? Would any such measures be Eugenics? How could
abuses be discouraged? What about people who defy the policy, and their
children?
I don't mean to start up the whole Fascist Blood-slinging feud again,
but it has surprised me that nobody has approached the issue of breeding
from the rather obvious (and I hope relevant) angle of population control
and life support stresses.
End Quote

I have also made numerous comments either to the effect of "This isn't
the issue I wanted to focus on" or "Great, this is exactly the sort of
thing I wanted to focus on". I have tried to provide guidance without
spoonfeeding my 'answers' to you, because I am interested in other peoples
original thoughts. And no, warmed over horror Sci-fi doesn't count as
original thoughts; though if anyone out there has found an take on this
issue that they thought was insightful and new in a work of fiction, then
please bring it up as such - if we can wring some sort of original and
applicable idea out of it, then it merits discussion.

> 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.

Fine by me - I don't want you giving me my answers either. If I thought
my answers were the end-all,-be-all then I wouldn't want to hear from anyone
else; and this discussion would be pointless. But I would appreciate an
actual effort on your part to take the issues seriously enough to give them
time for original thought - because original thoughts are what I'm after.

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

I hope I have clarified my position sufficiently; and I am happy to work
with a westernized post-industrial nation of your choice as a model - though
it may take me some time to familiarize myself with the internal workings if
you pick an obscure one. I guess I assumed that any habitat colonized would
try to set up a constitutional republic, but feel free to posit anything
plausible. I guess my one limitation here is that it should actually be a
colony; folks who wish to live permanently in a space habitat. I realize
that most habitats will actually enjoy brisk trade and immigration with one
another, and a booming tourist trade, but for the purposes of population
control issues, I'd like to examine one habitat as if it were a closed
system.

Thanks for participating.

Joe

> Message: 15
> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:06:13 -0000
> From: "victoriatangoman"
> Subject: Re: Population Control Policy Issues

> --- 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

Sorry, but I don't find this link at all convincing. It is the
projections of the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales (IFRI).
There is no explanation of their methods given, just a flat conclusion - and
it is interesting to note that they project population growth and loss of
international economic share for North America.
Heck, I can do as well, and it's got nothing to do with population
growth. China (their predicted big winner) desperately needs to modernize,
and it looks like they are well on the road to doing so. Predictibly, and
facilities they build now will be modern ones, and have a long service life
ahead of them. North America has an aging industrial infrastructure - with
many facilities built with out-of-date technology, but still considerable
service life ahead of them. True, some will be phased out, and modern
facilities built to replace them, but this is a piecemeal effort. Europe
has the worst of all worlds, many of its existing facilities date from the
reconstruction period following WWII (heavily updated in some cases) and the
european have never been able to get their act together regarding their
overly powerful work unions and farming lobbies - they will be the big
losers over the next fifty years.
There you go - an honest-to-goodness gloom-and-doom forecast that has
nothing to do with losing quantity of human resources; instead I have
phrased it all as Loss-of-quality-in-Enterprise-resources.
If you wanted to be convincing, maybe some historical data would be
better.

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

Great link - the first four paragraphs set out the authors position
pretty clearly; the EU is an economic shambles due to vast governmental
mismanagement. The next five paragraphs note that europe faces a crisis in
paying for its social programs because their industries have not remained
competitive, and the governments have found it easy to sop up votes by
promising extravagant social spending. The last of these five paragraphs
mentions IFRI in a not-so-complimentary-light, throwing doubts on the
credibility of the first link The next five paragraphs analyze and demolish
the IFRI analysis. The author then goes on to say the IFRI conclusions are
dead wrong, and makes a few suggestions. His last two paragraphs are about
the coming Euro-crash being a function of very poorly managed social and
economic structures - and his parting joke is almost his only reference to
population.

> http://www.iht.com/articles/96216.html

Another link, based on the same source material as the first, but with
more detail. On the second page of this link they explain that Europe is
(in the IFRI report) faced with TWO sources of economic misery - the first
is a shrinking population. The second? Technological progress and capital
accumulation - which sounds suspiciously like a problem with enterprise and
capital resources. The last few paragraphs, on the third page indicate that
the most favorable scenarios for europe in this report depends on creating
economic "co-prosperity Spaces" throughout the ex-soviet bloc and
mediterranian areas at the central bank level, melding smoothly with the EU.
This isn't a population related solution, it is an economic one.
In any event, none of these links supports the proposition that "Static
or declining population numbers leads to a static or declining economy".

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

> Nah - you just made digging the other factors out
unimportant. 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. When every citizen knows that they are
limited in family size, they are psychologically going to act
differently than nations that through the "invisible hand" have
below replacement level fertility. Even below replacement fertility
nations aim to boost their populations through immigration.

This psychological effect will have profound implications throughout
the society, especially the economy.

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.

> >>> 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?
>
> Heck, I dunno - you said it; look at the quoting above.

LOL. Yeah, we're writing the same language but we're confusing each
other. When I wrote "getting older" I meant people past their teen
years, or twenties, those whose biological clocks might be in their
thirties.

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.

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.

Through that process, I've found that this is the crux of the matter
for you and that's where we should concentrate the discussion. I
think we're on topic.

I'm participating in this post out of courtesy to you because a year
ago I wanted to discuss a topic on the bootstrapping process but
there were really no takers, so I know the frustration that I
believe you may have been feeling in not having anyone respond to
your topic. 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?
> >
> > I'm not sure lack of structure in other areas of society need
impact
> > the "procreation issue."
>
> You're kidding, right? I can just imagine the kinds of
coniptions that
> Libertarians and Anarchists would have over this issue.

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.

> 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.

>
> > 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.

> 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.

> 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 asked what
> rights do property owners have in terms of imposing loads on the
habitats
> life support system - and gave several reductio ad absurdum
(spelling?)
> examples.... I'd like to see your answers to those questions,
especially in
> light of the explanation I gave above re: life support costs.

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.

> Um. Yeah. But this is exactly the line of questioning which I
am
> interested in following, and getting feedback from the group on.
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.

I do have veiws, and I have tried to think my way through this
> rationally, but there's always something to be learned from other
peoples
> insights.

Absolutely. I much prefer brainstorming though.

> 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.

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.

> My apologies - my questions are still here. And you've even
given a
> grudging answer to one - you are apparently of an empiricist bent;
and may
> agree that a persons rights are defined by the society they live
in. If
> that is the case, then - as a starting point - that's great.

Yes, you've interpreted this correctly.

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.

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.

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

>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.

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.

> Is there any reason to
> assume that capital and enterprise resources will somehow
automatically be
> negative in a habitat with a stable population?

Not automatically negative. I'm assuming a static condition. No
growth and no recession.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

> 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.

> 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."

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 :)

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.

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, so you've got this "extra" child alive in the habitat
somewhere -
> somone 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.

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.

> Besides death, exile, or a fine, what other penalties could be
imposed?

Don't let it happen in the first place.

> Thank you. I actually do have an ulterior motive though. I
hope - slim
> though that hope may be - that we can reach some consensus, or
acheive some
> insights into how a population in a habitat could be managed
without
> devolving into a despotism of the worst kind

Despotism is pretty bad, but every instance of it doesn't have to
be "of the worst kind." Perhaps, the citizens and rulers will
realize the necessity of their policies in light of the restrictions
that they are facing and if the want to achieve a long term
sustainability, then the personal restrictions are a necessary evil
and the despotism that is required to enforce those restriction need
not be worse than absolutely necessary.

Kind of like income taxes are a imposition on the freedom of
democratic citizens. A necessary evil.

> Yes - and if I was interested in bad sci-fi from the 1970s
then I'd
> advertise that from the outset. I understand that forced
euthanasia IS a
> possible solution, but having it presented as
> this-obviously-is-the-only-way-your-scenario-can-ever-come-out,-
aren't-I-so-
> clever-Mr-smartypants attitude as evinced by your sarcastic "How's
that for
> a pessimistic veiw of the future?:) " question makes it - and you -
hard to
> take seriously. It was a work of fiction, design to present a
deliberately
> horrific future - and that's what you dredge up as a model? And
then act
> SMUG about it? I think I may have been going easy on you you to
merely call
> it an infantile fantasy!

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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?

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.

> >> 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?
>
> Oh, have fun being righteous.

I did, but it wasn't mean spirited. Relax a bit. I apoligize if you
were offended. I'll try to be strictly busines from hereon in.

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 a
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? 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.

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.
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.

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

> I've never met the collective, and I'm not sure I trust the
state.
> Whatever criteria get devised need to be damn near bulletproof to
prevent
> tampering.

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 make smost 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.

> >>If you are to be euthanized, why must you die without dignity?
> >
> > Who said you had to die without dignity?
>
> You did, in your obviously loaded "Logan's Run" scenario -
>
> Begin Quote:
> >>> 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
> End Quote.
>
> Or am I reading too much into the smug tone there?

Way too much. And it's not even smug. I didn't recongize that you
were trying to quote my comment because there was a spin, or a
change in context in how you posed the question.

When I read your question, I wondered why, after having been chosen
for euthanasia, the person had to die without dignity. Did you mean
that it was to be public, to be humiliating, to teach a lesson?
That's what I was curious about.

What I wrote and meant to convey, was that if you didn't believe in
the euthanasia policy, and found it an undignifed selection process,
then you didn't have a choice. The actual process of euthanizing
could be dignified. Do you see the distinction?

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

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote:
>
> > Message: 15
> > Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:06:13 -0000
> > From: "victoriatangoman"
> > Subject: Re: Population Control Policy Issues
>
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
> > wrote:
> >> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"
> >>
> >>>> 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
>
> Sorry, but I don't find this link at all convincing. It is the
> projections of the Institut Francais des Relations
Internationales (IFRI).
> There is no explanation of their methods given, just a flat
conclusion - and
> it is interesting to note that they project population growth and
loss of
> international economic share for North America.

I'm sorry things aren't always spelled out to your satisfaction in
news articles. I'm not aware of any means of getting journalists to
research and write articles that specifically address your
questions. If you'd like to analyze the methods used to reach these
conclusions you're completely free to do so by visiting the link at
the bottom of the article. It takes you to the 376 page study.
Perhaps the website manager thought most people would be satisfied
with a summary and wouldn't want to wade through a detailed
scientific analysis in order to synthasize their own conclusions.

> Heck, I can do as well, and it's got nothing to do with
population
> growth. China (their predicted big winner) desperately needs to
modernize,
> and it looks like they are well on the road to doing so.
Predictibly, and
> facilities they build now will be modern ones, and have a long
service life
> ahead of them. North America has an aging industrial
infrastructure - with
> many facilities built with out-of-date technology, but still
considerable
> service life ahead of them. True, some will be phased out, and
modern
> facilities built to replace them, but this is a piecemeal effort.
Europe
> has the worst of all worlds, many of its existing facilities date
from the
> reconstruction period following WWII (heavily updated in some
cases) and the
> european have never been able to get their act together regarding
their
> overly powerful work unions and farming lobbies - they will be the
big
> losers over the next fifty years.
> There you go - an honest-to-goodness gloom-and-doom forecast
that has
> nothing to do with losing quantity of human resources; instead I
have
> phrased it all as Loss-of-quality-in-Enterprise-resources.
> If you wanted to be convincing, maybe some historical data
would be
> better.

I don't care anymore.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote:
>>
>> --- 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
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't find this link at all convincing. It is
>> the projections of the Institut Francais des Relations
>> Internationales (IFRI). There is no explanation of their methods
>> given, just a flat conclusion - and it is interesting to note
>> that they project population growth and loss of international
>> economic share for North America.

[Here I summarized several other links, all of which you had cited
as support for your position, which appears to consistently
be "Static Population --...--> Looming Disaster"; none of the links
actually supported that contention. Some of the other links also
drew on the IFRI report, summarizing and critiquing it - and all
blamed disasterous government mismanagement and overspending in the
form of deeply flawed pay-as-you-go pension schemes for the looming
disaster in europe. All of this has gotten snipped out somewhere.]

>
> I'm sorry things aren't always spelled out to your satisfaction in
> news articles. I'm not aware of any means of getting journalists
> to research and write articles that specifically address your
> questions. If you'd like to analyze the methods used to reach
> these conclusions you're completely free to do so by visiting the
> link at the bottom of the article. It takes you to the 376 page
> study. Perhaps the website manager thought most people would be
> satisfied with a summary and wouldn't want to wade through a
> detailed scientific analysis in order to synthasize their own
> conclusions.

It's not the journalists fault, the journalist didn't point me
to these links claiming they supported a particular position. Upon
examination of the links provided they DID NOT support your
position, which makes me wonder if you even bothered to read them
yourself. And I'll be damned if I am going to let you shift the
burden of proof to me, and slog through three hundred and seventy
odd pages of econospeak gibberish - its your position, so it's up to
you to defend or abandon it.
And for what it's worth, I'll again point out that I'm not
particularly interested in economics at this point. The original
topic (as I introduced it in message 3913) was that with the givens,
population control would inevitably be a vital issue in a habitat;
and that I was interested in exploring which policies could be
rationally implemented to maintain a stable population.

[SNIP my recasting of the gloom and doom economic prophecy into what
I think were fairly plausible, if somewhat simplisic terms]