Who's Against Zero Growth and Me First?

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

> The problem with ever expanding geometric rises in population (which
is the
> assumption behind the full galaxy scenario) is to a large extent
> contradictory with the kind of 'closed-loop/steady state' philosophy
and
> culture that is required for the design and habitation of space
colonies.

What "closed-loop" implies is that it's misleading to think of a space
habitat as taking in a weekly or monthly shipment of oxygen, or food, or
water. I don't think it implies that a habitat won't see a point to
building another habitat for their children and grandchildren.

I'm not sure where you get the notion that "steady-state" philosophies
will be required in space settlements. On the contrary, I consider it
possible that many of the immigrants to space settlements might very
well have left Earth precisely in order to escape steady-state regiments
being enforced on Earth.

> Here though might be the answer. You're saying that if a society
doesn't
> grow it's shooting itself in the foot. However a society that does
grow
> knows that they're going to shoot themselves in the foot tomorrow, or
will
> leave the task to their children. That isn't a particularly nice or
sensible
> thing to do.

I don't think you can point to any place or time in history where people
stopped having children out of a concern that their children,
grandchildren, or more-remote descendents would bump up against some
kind of limit to growth. People living in refugee camps facing
starvation continue to have children. It's a powerful instinct that's
not usually overridden by fairly abstract and intellectual concerns
about limits to growth faced by one's descendents.

Regards,

Mike Combs