Who's Against Zero Growth and Me First?

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
wrote:
>
> 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.
> > then we will all recognized the greatness of both genders.
> >
i feel we are certainly getting to know each other on a much personal
level. after all if my children are to space travel i want to know
the the confidence of the designers.