Who's Against Zero Growth and Me First?

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of janet_baker76

> 1. I don't think you can make the generalization that this principle
> is true of all life forms we're aware of, without exception. There
> are any number of species who DIDN'T make it for whose disappearance
> we have no explanation.

OK, let me more-cautiously state that there is no PERSISTENT life-form
of which we are aware for which this is not the case. But if we can get
anything out of the Drake Equation, it's that persistent ET
civilizations are the only ones with which we might have even tiny odds
of hearing from.

So to apply this to the discussion at hand, we can expect technical
civilizations to go forth and multiply, or we can expect them to go
extinct. What we cannot expect is technical civilizations which are not
actively engaged in space settlement but are nonetheless still around
for us to perhaps pick up a radio signal from. The odds are vastly
against it. That's our only point.

> 2. Among species, reproduction has many variations. Some species re-
> absorb their fetuses in times of stress. Other species eat their
> young under similar circumstances, and sometimes even when
> no "stressers" are identifiable. Some males among species are prone
> to kill their offspring in all circumstances.

I guarantee you that each one of these represents a strategy to ensure
greater numbers of descendents in the long run. Reabsorbtion might
represent ensuring survival in the short-term so that there will be many
more opportunities to reproduce in the long-term. Even males killing
offspring might be creating a kind of "survival of the fittest" gauntlet
which, though it results in fewer offspring in the short term, results
in fitter, hence more prosperous, hence more numerous offspring on the
long term. I'm sure that natural selection is willing to trade a
short-term loss for a greater long-term gain.

> A. present data is denying that human
> reproduction is a given; human subspecies are presently dying by
> deliberately failing to reproduce (Japan, most of Europe, North
> Americans are all close to, at, or below zero growth, for example;

The undeniable trends your are referring to will only result in
demographic shifts. For example, in my home state of Texas, Caucasians
will become minorities in relation to Hispanics in the future. In
Europe, a similar trend will result in North Africans and Arabs being
the new majority. But every year there are more people overall. (Not
at the frightening pace predicted by the fear-mongers of the 1970's, but
then much all of what they said was exaggerated.)

Regards,

Mike Combs