Who's Against Zero Growth and Me First?

Hey, Smartsaspaper, I appreciated your reply to the other email, and
I, too, share the hope that with expanded horizons, men and women
may get equality of opportunity, if not the "equalities" that some
feminists want, the eradication of the female.

But would you put your replies at the top? I don't see them until
it's too late.

Jan B.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "smartaspaper"
wrote:
>
> --- 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@
Place"
> > >
> > > >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