Digest Number 713

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

> I am glad we agree here; though honestly I was hoping that by
stating
> the axioms as such, I could put them out-of-bounds and get down to
the nuts
> and bolts of the actual population control issue.

Your opening sentence summarizes our issues very succinctly. You
want the axioms to restrict the range of debate to a very narrow set
of circumstances that FORCE population control to be practiced. I
tried to play along, in the spirit of debate, by finding a situation
where I thought this could be an outcome. That would be the
temporary worker scenario.

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.

This human characteristic will also be in orbit. If you've sunk
billions into mining, refining, fabricating infrastructure for
Habitat construction your going to want to use it more than just
once.

If you have a factory to make refridgerators in orbit, then the
prospect of more consumers will be appealing, the costs of the
appliances can be lowered,the volume produced will increase, etc.

This is a hugely important dynamic at work that your axioms ignore.

Still, the 'Population of
> Temporary Workers' angle is interesting.... Would such a
population be
> single-gender? Just unmarried folks? Assuming a mixed bachelor
and
> bachelorette population, would marriage then be discouraged? What
about
> accidents and outright defiance?

It could be mixed gender. You're sent up there on a contract. If you
defy the contract or accidently get pregnant then you're in
violation of the terms. You could get sent back to Earth and lose
your completion bonus or forfeit other benefits.

In the case of families, would childbirth
> be forbidden, or controlled?

I'd say controlled. Probably worked into the terms of your 5 year
contract.

> And if controlled, then controlled how?

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.

Would
> population control even be an issue - if your temporary population
is much
> smaller than the maximum population, and has a staggeringly huge
growth rate
> of 5%, you won't hit the limits before you sent them all home.
What about
> the expense of the return tickets though? Who pays? And what
about folks
> who can't pay?

These are good questions. I'm only advocating the temporary worker
solution as a means of engaging in your scenario, not as something
that I think is an ideal situation, for the very questions you've
raised. I guess the expense of sending them home is built into the
arrangement. The worker is sent up to the Habitat in order to
produce X amount of economic value over a period of time. The costs
of maintaining that worker have to be less than the value of his
production or the whole rationale for the Habitat falls apart.

> > At the other extreme, an Island 3, with a population limit of
> > 10,000,000 will take a long time to fill up.
>
> []
> True, it IS a longer term process on larger habitats; but it
will reach
> the limits in finite time. So I hope that our discussion here
will be
> fruitful, even for them.

Yes, it will fill up over time. Once again I come back to the human
dynamic. Why would they purposely seek to prohibit growth beyond the
original Habitat? Your axioms lay that out but don't explain why.

> > The interior construction work will require different skill sets
and
> > robots than the equipment and skills needed to fabricate the
> > pressure shell and establish the biocylinder, so if the
population
> > planning models call for another Habitat in X years time, this
can
> > be planned for and built while the population grows.
>
> Good point that - is part of the tax structure a 'Social
Security' type
> fund, saved against the day a new habitat is needed?

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.
You'll need to come up with a good reason to choose stasis. The
resources for Habitat expansion are already there, and the work of
the shell construction is more automated and productive than all of
the detail work that the interiors will require with all of the
transportation, housing, etc requirements.

> No, I consider the entire construct as a single unit for
purposes of our
> discussion here. If a semi-urban population area has attached,
associated,
> remotely connected - or whatever - agricultural areas, then the
agricultural
> areas obviously are considered along with the population they
support. And
> my second axiom applies: there is still a limit to how efficient
your
> technology at the moment can make those ag areas.

I'm all for playing "what-if" for it can be very illuminating so to
follow your restrictions I would say that no matter the size of the
Habitat under discussion, it will be designed for a maximum
population size and it must be operated under those limits. If
technology is developed that can increase the limits of one of the
sub-systems, that in and of itself, may not be sufficient to
increase the limits on the other systems. They all have to rise in
lockstep to support population levels above the design limit.

You could invoke magic to make all resources vanish, so now there is
no choice but to live within the confines of the Habitat. Absent
something like that though, I just can't see expansion stopping.
Look at what's happened with oil exploration. A hundred years ago,
who would have thought that we'd be drilling off-shore? Activities
expand.

Again I'm taking the out that you're trying to restrict. Or I'm
suggesting that a Habitat can't exceed a population limit.

> The third axiom was intended to be considered in light of the
other two;
> putting new construction out of bounds. Start with any colony
with ample
> room, then the population fills it (a century goes by...). Now,
the wise
> ruling body builds extra living area and agricultural resources to
the
> absolute limit of their engineering ability with the amazingly
improved
> materials now developed, and the population fills it (more time
passes).
> Now the wise and benevolent ruling body, already at the limits of
> construction, upgrades all the life support systems at great
expense, and
> the agricultural areas - already very productive - are made
incredibly more
> so; then the population fills it... and my discussion BEGINS. The
point
> was, and is, once the actual, honest and for true, we just CANNOT
by any
> means support more population in a single habitat, limit is
reached (or even
> just approached) and new construction isn't an option - then what?

Your very restrictive scenario leads me to conclude that population
control measures must be introduced! Now you restrict child birth to
replacement level rates. You probably punish the transgressors with
heavy fines and taxes for "illegal births." Maybe you have a lottery
to allow for birth. Maybe you buy licenses. To safeguard the
civilization, perhaps everyone is temporarily sterilized and when
they have permission to procreate, then the sterilization is
reversed. I think that these measures should pretty much manage to
control and maintain a static population level.

> Um. Is this a handwave? I'm not too worried about the
economy... but
> the whole issue of population growth and control is precisely what
I'd like
> to address.

No, it's not a handwave. I think the economy will be a prime driver
in the expansion of an orbital civilization for from increased
population will come economic strength and diversity.

> I am not convinced that two days after the completion of the
pressure hull
> of the first (or any habitat) will be a time with gobs of free
capital to
> throw around... I tend to think all available capital will be sunk
in the
> new habitat, which can only just get started paying for itself.

For endeavors of this magnitutde I think we all need to cast off our
mindsets which presume that "Bob & Frank's Orbital Habitat
Construction Company" is the only one involved. I think that there
will be a number of actors, including governments of some sort
involved. Hospital construction capital will come from a different
source than the shoe factory's capital and from the residential
construction inventory's capital. But all that aside, if you've
eliminated the option of expansion beyond a set limit, then no
matter whether on Earth or in a Habitat, social policies have to be
established that limit freedom in a variety of forms. How do you
think that freedoms will be limited?

> Of course selling land in a habitat being constructed is a
major source
> of revenue for the construction of that habitat... but I'd hoped to
> concentrate on other areas of discussion than habitat construction.

OK, I hope you see that I'm trying to play along and just accept the
scenario you've proposed. The rebuttals from my earlier post had to
be stated, perhaps just to define the actual terms of your scenario,
because IMHO, they are likely responses to the crisis that will be
formenting in your scenario.

> I am suggesting that we
> think rationally now about what to do when the air runs out, just
as I think
> the pilgrims could have rationally thought about what their
descendants may
> have to face when the land ran out - granted that very few of them
probably
> thought much beyond their grandchildren.
>

Sorry, I can't resist :-) LOL. What did early settlers do when
things got too crowded in New Amsterdam? LOL.

Seriously though. I think population control, state planning, career
allotments, education allotments, tracking or channeling of
childrens talents are all likely outcomes of a "limit to growth."
Such State involvement makes the prospect of state-directed eugenics
a more likely outcome. You probably have detected the freedom-
depriving theme of my responses to the limit to growth scenario.
Further, I think innovation will wither because if you need x
engineers in the waste control station, y agronimists for fruit
production, z health care workers for the elderly, k teachers for
7th grade, etc, and everything is static, then there is no room for
innovation, and even if there was, the economics of implementing the
new innovation probably wouldn't make sense because there would be a
very finite market with no prospect of expansion. 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? :)

TangoMan