Digest 715 - Population Control Policy Issues

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Minchau"
wrote:
>
[Snip]
>
> Given that there could be inefficiences removed, newly-developed
> technology brought to bear, and so on, could that be implemented
> fast enough? Is an isolated population of 10 million sufficient
to
> produce enough creative people to produce the needed new
technology?
>
> There are limits to what can be acheived with eliminating
> efficiencies as well; the colonists would go for the low-hanging
> fruit first, then further efficiency gains would become
> progressively more difficult. If your gains in efficiency equals
> the rate of population growth, then this solution buys time at
> best. If enough time can be bought until the trip is completed
(and
> more resources harnessed), then it may work. If the rate of
> efficiency improvement outpaces the population growth, then the
> problem is solved.
>
> If increase in efficiency does not outpace population growth, or
if
> the limits to efficiency are reached, then the crisis remains.
>
> Options 1,2, and 4: Mass murders, suicides, and abortions have
been
> performed in the past, and they are ugly chapters in history,
events
> which I hope are not repeated in the spacefaring age.
>
> If option 5 reaches its limits and cannot outpace population
growth,
> then I think option 3 would take over: hope someone dies. And
they
> would die, of starvation or violence. Malthus in microcosm.
>
> I would prefer option 6: prevent the problem from ever happening
in
> the first place. Have a population-control system that works
right
> from the start, so that the crisis situation is never reached.
I'm
> open to suggestions on such a system.
>
> Ed

(*Does a happy dance*) I'm open to suggestions on such a system
as well! But I think option 1 (kill someone) is more palatable than
option 3 (hope someone dies). With waiting for someone to die, you
are still killing someone - but instead of putting a bullet in their
brainpan you are "Dry Gultching" them. It could be a slow and
horrible death - and worse, you aren't putting one person in a high
stress situation until they die, you're putting the entire
population of the habitat in a high stress situation until someone
dies - and it could be several somebodies, almost at random. Better
to take any death-row (for example, and if you have any) convicts
out of the Life Support equation first, and even after that
retaining some measure of control of the situation may be best. Of
course I may be off base here - anyone care to comment?

Joe.