Who's Against Zero Growth and Me First? Forum: Spacesettlers
Thread: Who's Against Zero Growth and Me First?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2007, at 19:32 UTC, janet_baker76 wrote:
>
> > I'd like to discuss the point you make in this reply, and a couple
> > of points you made in another e-mail. Both of the points support a
> > kind of "don't worry be happy" approach to the problem of human
> > reproduction in space. If I agreed with you, I would put the word
> > problem above in quotes since you have argued that human
> > reproduction will not be a problem in space, but I have argued
that
> > human reproduction will be a problem in space, and is already a
> > problem on earth, and if thinkers like yourselves do not address
it,
> > we stand a chance to retard the expansion of the human species
into
> > space. We stand a chance in fact to blow it as a species.
>
> There are lots of ways we may blow it as a species, but failing to
have
> babies isn't one of them. We may not have self-sustaining colonies
> before the next planet-wrecking asteroid or comet hits. Religious
> fanatics may engineer a plague that wipes out the whole species.
> Climate change may spiral out of control and lead to such extreme
> starvation that civilization collapses. It's even possible that
some
> future physics experiment (artificial black holes or whatever)
could go
> awry and wreck the planet. But as long as there are physically
healthy
> people, they will continue, as a whole, to have children. The
problem
> you imagine simply doesn't exist, and never has, for any species.
>
> > Regarding the idea that animal reproduction is flawless because it
> > is instinct-driven bears some discussion.
>
> Nobody said that it's flawless. Just that it works towards the most
> effective propagation of the species (or at least, of the particular
> genes responsible for whatever behavior you're considering). Sure,
> individual members may not reproduce successfully for a variety of
> reasons. And what happens to their genes? The disappear from the
gene
> pool. Any problem with reproduction is immediately self-correcting.
>
> > If evolution were flawless, wouldn't more species be using cell
> > phones?
>
> You should join the non-sequitur society. They may not make much
> sense, but at least they like pizza.
>
> > It seems more prudent to conclude only that regarding the species
> > presently existing on earth, the evolutionary decisions of their
> > ancestors didn't wipe them out.
>
> There are no "evolutionary decisions." Evolution is a process, and
a
> pretty well-understood one, too. Check out _The_Selfish_Gene_ by
> Richard Dawkins. It doesn't mean that genes have motives or will;
it
> just means that the process of evolution results in the selection of
> genes that increase the chance of those genes being reproduced.
Also
> keep in mind that selection and evolution happen in a cultural
society
> (such as ours) at the level of memes, much faster than at the level
of
> genes -- but the same rules apply.
>
> A more sensible argument might be that, because mimetic evolution is
> faster than genetic evolution, couldn't memes arise which prevent
> physical reproduction? But that too would be self-correcting in the
> end, since memes need a large physical population in which to
spread.
>
> > Whether those decisions maximized
> > the species is another question entirely, and space colonization
is
> > about maximizing our species rather than opting for a zero-growth,
> > steady-state society.
>
> Then we're in luck, since maximization is exactly what selective
> pressure does.
>
> > But, then, what of your idea that another culture will simply take
> > their place, without any substantial negative consequence? In
other
> > words, in the struggle today between the East and the West, we
space
> > colonists simply do not have a dog in that fight.
>
> I don't understand your metaphor here.
>
> > European culture historically showed itself to be well equipped
for
> > colonization. It had the technological development, and it had
> > another element, a motivation that inspired men and women to
travel
> > what was a lifetime, then, to them, into conditions unspeakably
> > primitive. It was more than money that sent them.
>
> Indeed, just as it's more than money that drives most of us to yearn
> for the stars.
>
> > And almost everything, the whole resurrection, hinges
> > on a woman choosing, which she never could before, first, to
> > reproduce, and then, to provide the kind of high quality
motherhood
> > that can foster star voyagers just as it once produced maritime
> > voyagers.
>
> The dads have no influence in your world model, I suppose? At any
> rate, yes, it hinges on women continuing to have babies. It also
> hinges on tomatoes not suddenly evolving into 12-foot monsters and
> killing us all, as well as a lot of other things we can pretty
safely
> count on.
>
> It also hinges on some things that are less certain, like us getting
> through the next century without killing ourselves off in any
number of
> grisly ways.
>
> > It is a learned behavior. It involves an enormous amount of
> > self-sacrifice, which is largely unrecognized.
>
> I've noticed a serious tendency towards self-pity (or at least,
> mother-pity) here. I know a lot of mothers -- including both my
own,
> and my wife -- and they seem to find motherhood a lot more rewarding
> than you do. Yes, mothers AND fathers sacrifice a lot to have kids,
> but we do it anyway because it's totally worth it. Get over it.
>
> > To me, Mike, in all, you are arguing against your own interests,
and
> > I have suggested for political correctness, for the sake of
> > liberalism.
>
> You're addressing Mike here, not me, but I certainly haven't seen
him
> make any statements based on political correctness. I see you
making
> wild claims based on some strange mix of mother-pity and religious
> doctrine, and he's calmly replying with facts and firm scientific
> theories.
>
> > I wish it weren't important, but, since I believe this
> > list has established that it is not technological challenge that
is
> > keeping us from the first space colony, but rather entirely social
> > (or political, or religious, or however one might call it)
> > roadblocks, it is all too important.
>
> Hmm, no, I don't think we've established that it's either one of
those.
> I'd say that it's mainly economic. The initial investment for the
> first space colony is immense, and the payoff is remote at best.
This
> creates a large economic barrier, analogous to the energy barrier
> needed to start a chemical reaction. In brief, while we
theoretically
> COULD build a space colony with current technology, we can't afford
to
> do so, so really we can't. But as technology progresses, the
barrier
> continues to get lower, and at some point we will at last be able
to do
> it.
>
> Religion has nothing to do with it at all, and politics has very
little
> (unless you want the government to spend that huge initial
investment,
> but that's really just wishful thinking).
>
> > I think if you looked to the
> > enemies of zero growth, you would be surprised, and also you might
> > begin to foster here on earth an environment that makes it
possible
> > for women to choose motherhood and also individual expression and
> > dignity.
>
> Janet, that's what women have ALREADY been doing for quite some time
> now. I don't know where you live that things are so awful for
mothers,
> but it's certainly not like that anywhere I've been.
>
> - Joe
>
> --
> Joe Strout -- joe@...
of mother earth first. to explore non toxic energy, food waist etc.
seems too late for that now. our new explorers might save humanity
if not physically then intelectually and hopefully emotionally.
refering to refelection on our present mistakes/greed/ideology. a
new begining for humans without discrimination or bias, after all
soon it will be who can push a button faster than another being. it
was brut force that separated the genders. as Regan put it not exact
wording we will only care if one is human only, the thought of space
travel could bring both genders under the same equality. we have
always had explorers that is what brought us out of the dark ages.
then we will all recognized the greatness of both genders.