Will Societal Creation Be Immoral?

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"

> wrote:
> The Tin Can full of
> > anti-religionists can raise their children as they see fit,
> including
> > (withing their household) labeling religion as delusion. But by
> making
> > religion out to be Anathema within their community, and
outlawing
> it from
> > their Can on pain of banishment, aren't they just being Taliban,
> declaring
> > war on the rest of humanity that doesn't submit to their way of
> thinking?
>
> Not really. They're choosing to live according to their own
beliefs,
> not impose them on the rest of humanity. I chose religion because
it
> is close to many people's lives and there is a lot of well-meaning
> zealotry to try to convert others to join, so such a Habitat would
> be a magnet to those trying to undo the experiment.
>
> You can substitute Libertarianism for religion. You can choose
> homosexual to the exclusion of heterosexual, or vice versa. You
can
> substitute Mennonite for Athiest. A bunch of Atheists decide that
a
> Mennonite Habitat has to be made more liberal to oppsoing views.
> They join and try to subvert...
> Are they all Taliban for excluding other, opposing points of view?

May I tackle this question solely on a 'live-and-let-live' basis:-

I'd like to place a bet that if a society in space were to come
about that was determined to 'keep out' all those who wished (or
seemed to wish - mistakes are very possible) to 'subvert' their
societal order, then you would certainly see a concerted effort made
to overcome any barriers put up by the soon-to-be beleaguered
colony - whether overt or covert, most probably not in the manner of
a conspiracy, but more likely a lot of people who would be excluded
by that society taking it upon themselves to go there and raise hell
(and you probably wouldn't even have to go there to raise hell).

So I believe it would come down to how seriously would that society
be about enforcing their 'exclusion order', if a heavy effort were
to be made to get them to change their ways to the liking
of 'outsiders', who probably have no real investment or interest in
life on the colony they would be attacking.

I see it as very possible that the society might eventually throw in
the towel, under such a barrage, as let's face it, not many of us
are that willing to stand tall for our beliefs under intense social
pressure. In a colony with even 10,000 souls aboard, it seems much
more likely to me that even if there were a few strong-minded people
who did their best to maintain their social order, eventually they
would lose local support, basically by being undercut by the rest of
the population, who would have given in to outside pressure at some
point.

That's (for me) the pessimistic view. The only possible bright side
is that this sort of thing might happen so often, that it becomes
widely regarded as undesirable*, so much so that some portion of
(space-faring) humanity gets basically pig-sick of so many social
experiments being wrecked in this fashion, and resolves that
whatever means they come up with to prevent these kinds of
occurances, they will surely stand by their efforts. Which is the
most important thing - motivation. It's what the 'subversives'
have. I can't see anything wrong in matching them in that regard.

*Undesirable in that, oftentimes efforts made to change the way a
society conducts itself, so as to be more agreeable to that
society's detractors, just end up taking away the appeal of that
society has for the members, and for no good reason. Certainly the
detractors themselves never seem to appreciate the changes made,
beyond having mounted an effort to make the society adjust to their
demands. For example, 'gentlemen's clubs' (in the UK).