Digest Number 722

--- 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