Thanks for your contributions; further discussion.

So, sailer, what's Planned Parenthood doing, without the 'girl scouts story'? Do they ever try to make the point that sexual expression is the natural thing and that restrictions upon it are old-fashioned, stupid, and probably violations of the Constitution? If so, doesn't common sense tell you that the 'story' (told by credible, long-time reporters on UN doings) of this policy being promulgated among fifth graders on a visit there, has a chance to be true--and that you should at least research as well as possible (for none of us were there, so far)before not 'buying it,' as you put it?

"Here" where you would like to avoid that kind of work is a forum dedicated to the promulgation of space colonies rather than to the promulgation of sex-for-fun, or sex-for-family-building, either one. You might think the two topics are worlds apart (sorry! couldn't resist it). But not.

See, channeling sex into non-reproductive uses lowers the population. Forget "family planning." It doesn't work out. South Korea was successful in lowering its re-population rate to the supposedly desirable balanced replacement rate--two kids per two people, or couple. Actually two point two, to allow for childhood deaths and infertility among some couples--which is higher than that now. But they ran into the problem that their women no longer want to have any children at all. We've been taught to cheer at that notion whenever we hear it, by the New York Times among others. But those of us who would like to see a future in space ought not to. Why do I say that?

Because Brooks is right to look at economic factors limiting our impetus to the stars--just not at tourism. There have to be economic reasons to make that leap, incentives, needs not being met, markets not being tapped. How can we reach that stage? NOT IN CONTRACTION MODE! That's the message being pounded out every single day, but we aren't understanding it. What do you think it means, falling market? Tapped-out markets? Buyer exhaustion? We are no longer --those countries whose development could possibly sustain a drive to space--growing. We are contracting. Houses are unsold. They say, 'we overbuilt.' They built to the rate of expansion suggested by the past--before Planned Parenthood. They could say, Wow, we have no buyers. Wow, we killed them! (Fifty million abortions in the last forty years in the US.) But it's way safer to say, We overbuilt. Multiply that by cars, by clothes, by every commodity that might drive us to find an asteroid to milk. It's not there! We've already eaten all we can and they aren't going to pay us any more, because that particular market doesn't justify it, and the only way to have that safe, gentle, sustained growth that might allow us to go 'head with space is just not there. And you can thank Planned Parenthood, whose goal is not going anywhere, but steadily reducing earth's 'undesirables', just like their foundress fervently wished. (There is no country on earth that can demonstrate they can 'plan' population (that would be us). They hit 2.2 births per couple and then they keep on falling. Immigration--like here in the US, the Mexicans are still having babies, for a minute, or in Europe it's Muslim immigration but in any case it ain't middle class reproduction, the kids are more burdens than assets, and anyway, the immigrants lose their desire to make families with the second generation, as soon as Planned Parenthood gets to them, through the girl scounts, through the schools.)

"Here" needs to fight Planned Parenthood along with more 'scientific' discussions of how many cubic centimeters of hydrogen yields how many gallons of whatever. I mean, just sayin.'

It would also be a good idea for 'here' to figure out how getting into space could result in broader ownership for the ordinary guy and gal earthling. Not higher salary, but actual shares. That's a religious question, by the way.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "sailor.barsoom" wrote: