Who's Against Zero Growth and Me First?

Somebody wrote, I think Joe,

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.

Well, now that women have a choice, a whole lot of them are opting
out, or having children only at the rate of replacement--two
children--or even less. Also, perhaps you didn't read recently,
people with children suffer from depression at significantly higher
rates, when income, race, and age are all equalized as factors.
Parenthood, and especially motherhood, is a very difficult, life-
long challenge that many folks are not choosing, and that number
grows every day. Especially today, with divorce rates so high, with
income down (especially men's!), to have a child is a very big deal
for a woman, an exercise in trust and just plain work, holding down
two full-time jobs.

I'd hate to meet the writer's wife at a bar sometime and ask certain
questions. That's terrible to say, but you know how unreliable self-
reporting is, those of us with undergrad degrees in psychyology.

I have three kids, love them madly, wish I'd had twelve, but was it
hard? Honey! If that's mother-pity, why don't you get up off a
little?

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "smartaspaper"
wrote:
>
> --- 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@
>
> >i aggree in part. however we should have and we did not take
care
> 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.