Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

clark · 2002-07-03 13:24:28

Given that any Martian base or colony will be required to manufacture all the basic neccessities of life (i.e. food, air, water, living space, and power) will Martian colonists be free to reproduce at will, or would it be in the best interest of Society that reproduction rates be controlled through the use of regulation and force?

Wanton reproduction could cost everyone else their lives since it might over-tax what the colony is capable of supporting, this means that a central authority would be charged with regulating reproduction. Should there be such regulation? How should such regulation take place?

clark · 2002-07-03 13:33:07

I believe it would be sensible to limit and control the rate of reproduction based on the ability to sustain the growing population. Since individual actions have a more pronounced effect within a limited environment, such as a martian colony, it would be prudent to ensure that over-population through indiscriminate reproduction be prevented or mitigated. I would suggest mandatory contraception unless granted a liscence to reproduce.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-03 22:54:21

Wait...

You're going to have a built-in manpower shortage, so lets force people to stop reproducing. ???

That's less excuse than China has. What happens if a baby is concieved anyway? Do you kill it?

Byron · 2002-07-04 05:14:10

I believe it would be sensible to limit and control the rate of reproduction based on the ability to sustain the growing population. Since individual actions have a more pronounced effect within a limited environment, such as a martian colony, it would be prudent to ensure that over-population through indiscriminate reproduction be prevented or mitigated. I would suggest mandatory contraception unless granted a liscence to reproduce.

The truth of the matter is, rules regulating how many offspring one can have would probably be irrevelent on Mars, as raising a child will be far more costly and troublesome than here on Earth. As expensive as food and clothing will be, not to mention living space...imho, the biggest problem will be the lack of children...any central authority will probably have to put "incentives" in place to encourage people to have children in the first place.

Economics is the biggest limiting factor of all, and Mars will be a prime example of this..especially when it comes to having children. In addition, the accentuated risks of having children in a low-gravity, high radiation environment will be a further deterrent to having babies in a newly-inhabited Mars.

B

clark · 2002-07-05 10:01:37

You're going to have a built-in manpower shortage, so lets force people to stop reproducing.

No, you misunderstand. I am not stating that people should be forced to stop reproducing, I am suggesting that a centralized authority must be able to REGULATE and CONTROL population growth uin order to properly maintain the stability of a closed environment where all neccessary components of life must be manufactured.

The truth of the matter is, rules regulating how many offspring one can have would probably be irrevelent on Mars, as raising a child will be far more costly and troublesome than here on Earth.

I agree, however, I am considering a colony, which implies long term habitation. If there is no opportunity for reproduction, then it cannot truly be considered a colony, can it?

As expensive as food and clothing will be, not to mention living space...imho, the biggest problem will be the lack of children...any central authority will probably have to put "incentives" in place to encourage people to have children in the first place.

I agree with you, but I am looking at this from the other side of the problem. What if there is no need for incentive- having children is a very natural and instinctual behavior that is irrational in an industralized and technologicly advanced society- I doubt many people will need that much incentive. As such, wouldn't it behoove the colony to have some kind of regulation controling reproduction to stave off any Malthusian melt down?

That's less excuse than China has. What happens if a baby is concieved anyway? Do you kill it?

This is why I suggested that mandatory contraception take place. If conception occurs on purpose in definace of the rules, both parents should be sterilized or removed from the colony. The baby should also be removed from the parents- this would act a deterrence becuase why have a baby if you can't raise it and will have to undergo sterilization otherwise.

Palomar · 2002-07-05 11:19:26

*Actually, I don't foresee Marsian children/babies as being an issue for quite some time. There will be so many challenges to overcome for the early settlers -- many of which will remain unforseeable until people actually get there -- that I'm sure those settlers will take precautions...and yes, I believe birth control should be mandatory regardless. Besides we don't know how the stress, challenges, excitement, worries, and atmosphere of Mars all combined might affect people's sex drives...they might go down.

A baby born on Mars will basically be floating around unless provided with weighted baby clothes to develop near-Earth-normal muscle mass; also, the baby's clothing would need to be weighed down to enable developmental milestones: Baby can't first roll over in the crib then scoot along the floor then crawl and then cruise around furniture if he or she is floating around in the lower Marsian gravity! I'm thinking babies especially -- and children -- will need special suits to be worn at all times [can be light-weight and similar to spandex, i.e. totally flexible] which is weighted, to help produce muscle mass.

This is just ONE of the challenges of having a baby on Mars...particularly for those early settlers. Providing adequate nutrition is another headache. Suppose the child is lactose intolerant? Can't just run down to the local Wal-Mart and pick up ProSobee or Enfamil because mom's breast milk makes baby sick, and the powdered cow's milk in the hab only gets spit back up.

And what if the mission must be scrubbed, the project is called off, something horrible happens and people are told to come back to Earth, etc? Yeah, I'm on a roll here, but bear with me -- if the child cannot be habituated to Earth's gravity or something akin, the parents face either staying on Mars [and subsequent death] with the child, or leaving the child behind. That's a worst-case scenario and will probably never happen...but it could.

Based on all this and other related matters -- I didn't touch on the issue of DIAPERING, did I? What will diapers be made out of? Can't have disposable diapers there -- how will they be cleaned? Babies go through LOTS of them, and the laundering process of cloth diapers is an everyday busy task in and of itself -- I'd like to give the first generation(s) of Marsian settlers the benefit of the doubt that they'll use their brains when it comes to birth control and population issues.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-05 12:04:23

It's likely that most people who live in a Mars colony will limit the number of kids they have without the need of government commissars sending their goons to force abortions on women who happen to get pregnant one too many times. One only has to look at the tendency in highly industrialized countries where womens' rights are respected that most families don't have many children anyhow. If something of a population problem does develop on Mars, concerned anarchists can merely take their cause to the people. Most people, particularly those who will live on Mars, won't be so idiotic
as to not see the merits in such arguments. Anyhow, who'd want to migrate to a colony that has an anti-individualist gov't? If I wanted to live in a society that more or less views individuals as state property I'll just move to China!

clark · 2002-07-05 12:41:11

It's likely that most people who live in a Mars colony will limit the number of kids they have without the need of government commissars sending their goons to force abortions on women who happen to get pregnant one too many times.

One, no one has suggested forced abortions. Two, relying on the asupices of the population to control reproduction to tolerable levels sounds unwise for planning a life in a vacum where all neccessities for life must be manufactured or imported.

One only has to look at the tendency in highly industrialized countries where womens' rights are respected that most families don't have many children anyhow.

It has more to do with education than rights (but womens rights does lead to greater education for women). The fact will remain that those going to Mars to start a new life on Mars will want to have children- millions of years of evolution atest to this one basic fact- the only things that succeed are the ones that reproduce (silly point, I know). is it wise to have uncontrolled and unchecked reproduction if doing so could cause the close system support to fail?

If something of a population problem does develop on Mars, concerned anarchists can merely take their cause to the people. Most people, particularly those who will live on Mars, won't be so idiotic

Waiting for the problem to develop is exactly the wrong attitude- a space colony must be planned- everything m,ust be integrated first, not afterwards. There is little room for waste on mars, which means there needs to be greater effeciency- the type of effencicy that allows for planned population expansion and for a stable environment in which to support any new people.

Why is it that people can see the wisdom in limiting the number of people IMIGRATING to a mars colony, but not being born in one? It is fundamentaly the same thing.

Anyhow, who'd want to migrate to a colony that has an anti-individualist gov't?

Then why go to mars? The environment forces the individual to be second to the group by neccessity. Security is linked directly to the environment, which means you have less freedoms becuase your actions will more directly impact others rights (as compared to here on Earth).

You can have much more freedom in an open field where you and I can maintain 100 yards distance at all times- but that all changes when those same 100 yards are in an enclosed environment where we both are sharing the same air manufactured from the same machines.

Byron · 2002-07-07 06:58:02

Waiting for the problem to develop is exactly the wrong attitude- a space colony must be planned- everything must be integrated first, not afterwards. There is little room for waste on mars, which means there needs to be greater effeciency- the type of effencicy that allows for planned population expansion and for a stable environment in which to support any new people.
Why is it that people can see the wisdom in limiting the number of people IMIGRATING to a mars colony, but not being born in one? It is fundamentaly the same thing.

I certainly agree with this statement...once a Martian settlement is established, the early settlers would have to be extremely cooperative with each other in order to promote a safe and controlled environment, including taking steps to prevent over-taxing of its resources, such as population control.

However, my take on this is that I don't think that the community would ever have to resort to firm limits on how many children each couple could have, like China. For one thing, you have to have a fertility rate of 2.1 babies per woman just to maintain your current population, and this rate would have to pushed up to 3.5 or 4 children per couple to create any kind of exponential domestic growth curve. In the early days of Martian settlement, I really don't see woman having this many babies enmasse. The young colony would be made up of highly ambitious, hard-working and intelligent people such as scientists, engineers, researchers and a myriad of other specialists who would likely be working 12-14 hours a day on a continuous basis...having children would probably be quite low on their personal priority lists, especially in the first couple of decades or so, when there's still much to be learned on the effects of the low gravity on the growth and development of children...not to mention all the other risks and dangers of pregnancy in such a harsh and isolated environment.

But as the new settlement grows, having children will indeed become more common, and once the infrastructure is put into place (large, spacious domes, surplus-producing greenhouses, "unlimited" water and energy, etc) the fertility rate could very well rise above 2.1, creating "domestic" growth. At this point, I think the young community would simply regulate the number of incoming immigrants from Earth to balance the increasing numbers of children being born on Mars. I have little idea of what the "ideal" growth rate would be, but I'm thinking it might be somewhere between 5 and 10 percent every m-year...which would mean a LOT of kids would have to be born to exceed that kind of growth rate. Not likely to happen. Take a look at what's happening in many modern, industrialized societies here on Earth today...in some countries, the fertility rate has fallen to barely one baby per couple. Even here in the U.S., the rate has been stuck at 2.1 for quite some time now...which means we depend on immigration for continued population growth. I doubt that Mars would be dramatically different.

Indeed, the rare family who has more than 3 kids would probably be looked on with respect and admiration, as they would help take up the slack for those too busy to have kids at all, not to mention homosexuals, people exposed to too much radiation, older people, etc. It is very unlikely that the colony would ever have to resort to actual birth restrictions, and if things do become a bit too crowded, wouldn't you think some of the "excess" people would then go out and form other communities? After all, that's what happened in North America..we started out on the eastern fringes of this vast continent, and expanded westward, even before things became overcrowded in the East. Same thing on Mars...even if people are restricted to pressure-controlled environments...after all, building the first settlement will be the biggest hurtle..it'll all be downhill after that, due to duplication and ever-increasing efficiencies (like Ford did with the early automobiles.) It's an awfully big, empty world out there, you know...

IMHO...it's very unlikely that laws or rules restricting the actual number of children one can have will ever come to pass on Mars...

B

clark · 2002-07-08 07:08:57

For one thing, you have to have a fertility rate of 2.1 babies per woman just to maintain your current population, and this rate would have to pushed up to 3.5 or 4 children per couple to create any kind of exponential domestic growth curve.

So an interesting side question, should only those who WILL reproduce be allowed to settle mars? That is, deny or cause those who are less likely to reproduce from coming to mars.

As for the math of 2.1 babies per woman just to maintain a steady population- is a martian settlement even feasible if you have 50% of the population (the children) producing nothing?

In the early days of Martian settlement, I really don't see woman having this many babies enmasse.

Then when? What of those who choose to do have babies "en masse"? Should they be allowed, or tolerated, when such behavior could unfairly tax the ability of the settlement to provide adequate neccessities to all?

The young colony would be made up of highly ambitious, hard-working and intelligent
people such as scientists, engineers, researchers and a myriad of other specialists who would likely be working 12-14 hours a day on a continuous basis...having children would probably be quite low on their personal priority lists,

Sounds like our current living environment for many people... and they still have children. Having children is a highly irrational and purely instinctual behavior that has it's own "rewards" programmed into the very act of reproducing- from conception to birth to rasing a child.

But as the new settlement grows, having children will indeed become more common, and once the infrastructure is put into place (large, spacious domes, surplus-producing greenhouses, "unlimited" water and energy, etc) the fertility rate could very well rise above 2.1, creating "domestic" growth.

Where exactly is the "unlimited" water and energy? All water must be manufactured- processed from martian sources and converted into a useable form by humans- all of which takes energy. Energy must be used to power everything from air manufacture, water manufacture, power for computer systems, lights, heating, cooling, etc. Yes, energy might be abundant, but not unlimited. Even using solar power, the so called "free energy"- there is a requirment to create the neccessary infrastructure to produce the solar power- all of whihc takes resources and energy to create- which means that it is certainly not free, and not unlimited.

How can the settlement "grow" if no one has any children? Immigration? Then why even allow people to have children?

It is very unlikely that the colony would ever have to resort to actual birth restrictions, and if things do become a bit too crowded, wouldn't you think some of the "excess" people would then go out and form other communities?

How realistic is it to assume that people can just up and start a new community when each community needs specfic skills for the settlement to function? You have to have engineers, mechanics, geolgists, medics, nutrionists, biologists, etc.- The new community would have to have all the neccessary people with the neccessary skills in addition to all of the infrastructure to support them and anyone else that is going to live there. Where do these people and resources come from? Considering the limitations caused by this neccessity, isn't it prudent to make sure the settlement has the people to start a new base BEFORE the need to start a new base arises?

Same thing on Mars...even if people are restricted to pressure-controlled environments...a

Building a pressure controlled environemnt with all of the electronics neccessary requires a huge amount of resources or a very large technologicaly advanced manufacturing base on Mars- again, that means you have to make sure you can build new one FIRST before you can allow people to have children.

IMHO...it's very unlikely that laws or rules restricting the actual number of children one can have will ever come to pass on Mars...

Let me put it another way, Every child born on Mars is one less scientist from earth that is denied the opportunity to go to mars. Other than science, Mars has nothing to offer Earth in terms of "resources".

Byron · 2002-07-08 09:14:15

Clark...you certainly don't let us get off easy, do you?..LOL. But, hey, if it wasn't for your endless challenges to the thoughts we've posted, this board would be a far less interesting place to visit... , so by all means, keep it up...I certainly enjoy a good challenge...

Anyhow, here's my thoughts to your last post:

So an interesting side question, should only those who WILL reproduce be allowed to settle mars? That is, deny or cause those who are less likely to reproduce from coming to mars.

Of course not...the point I'm attempting to make is that in the early going, at least, that reproduction will not be a major factor in a fledging Martian settlement, for various reasons discussed earlier, such as adverse health affects, the lack of resources for raising children, ad infintum... For the first couple of decades or so, I believe that close to 100% of a colony's growth will come from immigration, and once the community reaches a certain "critical mass," (who knows what that may be, however..that bridge will have to be crossed when we get there,) then it will be feasible/practical to begin having children. The way I see it, this will progress on a gradual curve...beginning with a few children at first, and gradually progressing to greater numbers of offspring as time progresses.

As for the math of 2.1 babies per woman just to maintain a steady population- is a martian settlement even feasible if you have 50% of the population (the children) producing nothing?

You really think that once a suitable environment is created for raising children, that mothers will have their "2.1 kids" right off the bat? Of course not. Some will have kids as soon as possible, others will chose to wait, creating a curved distribution of children of varying ages. As for the kids "doing nothing," I do not think this will be the case. Chances are that as soon as the kids reach, let's say, the age of 10 or 12 (earth years), they will begin assisting the adults in the various life-critical activities required to be performed within the colony, such as tending to the crops alongside their parents and so on and so forth. Believe me, the parents will seek to make use of their children as soon as possible...lol, as much trouble it will be to have them in the first place.

Then when? What of those who choose to do have babies "en masse"? Should they be allowed, or tolerated, when such behavior could unfairly tax the ability of the settlement to provide adequate neccessities to all?

What I meant by this statement is when the conditions for raising children becomes a bit more tolerable, so to speak, the natural instinct to have kids will kick in, and "traditional" families will come into existance...but I really don't see women having 4, 6 or 8 kids like we see in some 3rd world countries. How many "professionals" do you know that have large, rambunctious families? Most have one or two kids, sometimes 3, but more than that, it's really quite rare, and it will be even more rare on Mars. Sure, there will be exceptions to the rule, and perhaps a top limit of 3 or 4 kids would have to put into place, but this is unlikely. (Notice I said unlikely, which different than saying it will never happen.)

Where exactly is the "unlimited" water and energy? All water must be manufactured- processed from martian sources and converted into a useable form by humans- all of which takes energy. Energy must be used to power everything from air manufacture, water manufacture, power for computer systems, lights, heating, cooling, etc. Yes, energy might be abundant, but not unlimited. Even using solar power, the so called "free energy"- there is a requirment to create the neccessary infrastructure to produce the solar power- all of whihc takes resources and energy to create- which means that it is certainly not free, and not unlimited.

I'm probably guilty of improper wording here...again, the point I'm stating is that as time progresses, there will be increasing resources available through the use of techology, hard work, etc. We know that Mars has a tremendous amount of water, and not all of it is frozen, as there's evidence of *liquid* water deep underground...hopefully the colonists will be smart enough to locate their community in a place where they could simply drill down and extract liquid water in copious quantities. As for energy, wouldn't you think that the future Martians would have nuclear or fusion energy at their disposal? Without a copious energy supply, you might as well forget the idea of a viable Martain settlement to begin with. Techology has gotten us this far (first flight to Moon landing in the span of a single lifetime is a good example,) and this will be even more relevant on Mars.

How can the settlement "grow" if no one has any children? Immigration? Then why even allow people to have children?

Again, I think things will progress on a gradual curve...100% of growth will come from Earth to start with, and gradually shift to domestic growth over time...it is unreasonable to think this will happen in a "knee jerk" fashion..that is not how human societies (at least intelligent, reasonable ones) work.

How realistic is it to assume that people can just up and start a new community when each community needs specfic skills for the settlement to function? You have to have engineers, mechanics, geolgists, medics, nutrionists, biologists, etc.- The new community would have to have all the neccessary people with the neccessary skills in addition to all of the infrastructure to support them and anyone else that is going to live there. Where do these people and resources come from? Considering the limitations caused by this neccessity, isn't it prudent to make sure the settlement has the people to start a new base BEFORE the need to start a new base arises?

I'm taking the long view with this one...yes, it's unreasonable to think that you will see "breakway" communities develop right off the bat, but once the original settlement reaches a certain population level, I'm sure there will be "surplus" people to spare to start a new settlement, and besides, as time progresses and the cost of space travel falls, which it certainly will, the pace of immigration to Mars will increase, and the new people will certainly be graceful to establish new places to live in conjuntion with the "natives" who know what they're up against...

Let me put it another way, Every child born on Mars is one less scientist from earth that is denied the opportunity to go to mars. Other than science, Mars has nothing to offer Earth in terms of "resources".

I'm quite suprised to see this rather blunt statement from you...you really think that a child born on Mars will preclude a person coming from Earth?? Give me a break. It will be quite the opposite. The more people born on Mars, the more Mars will be developed, and therefore, additional opportunities will be created for Earth immigrants in response to greater numbers of Martians born, just like the current history of the U.S...the larger we grow, the more immigrants we're able to aborb and integrate into our society. How do you think we got this far? By promoting a *healthy* mix of domestic growth and immigration. There's no reason why this principle won't work on Mars. I think the biggest "export" to Earth from Mars will be high technology...the Martians will certainly be much more dependent on it than us Earthlings!

You may fire when ready.....

B

clark · 2002-07-08 09:55:34

Well met Byron,

Of course not...the point I'm attempting to make is that in the early going, at least, that reproduction will not be a major factor in a fledging Martian settlement, for various reasons discussed earlier, such as adverse health affects, the lack of resources for raising children, ad infintum...

If there are adverse health affects that preclude having children, dosen't that also preclude having colonists? The point being that any health affects that children might be exsposed to would neccessarily mean that the original colonists would be exsposed to as well. I am of course assuming that such health affects will be solved prior or very shortly after a martian base is established. If the health risks are mitigated, then people would be free to have children unencumbered- it is exactly this freedom that could lead to an instability due to the strain caused by unepexected people who must be supported.

For the first couple of decades or so, I believe that close to 100% of a colony's growth will come from immigration, and once the community reaches a certain "critical mass," (who knows what that may be, however..that bridge will have to be crossed when we get there,) then it will be feasible/practical to begin having children.

Please clarify, "feasible"- are you suggesting that individuals will see the appropriate time to have children? Wouldn't it be a wiser course of action to have a central authority DECIDE when that "feasible" moment has occured? Or should individuals be allowed to make that determination on their own- which means that they could reach that conclusion at any time- irregardles of an objectivce reality.

The way I see it, this will progress on a gradual curve...beginning with a few children at first, and gradually progressing to greater numbers of offspring as time progresses.

Ah, but even ONE child results in an entire population being "stuck" on Mars. If for some reason the former earthlings need to leave, they might be able- the Martians natives will more than likely not have that option (physical limitations and immunity to diseases lacking). While it dosen;t prevent people from leaving, it unneccsarily complicates our flexibility.

Some will have kids as soon as possible, others will chose to wait, creating a curved distribution of children of varying ages.

Which is ineffecient- it means you are required to provide adquete care for all ages at all points- so sometimes you have 10 tenm year olds, other times you have 3 ten year olds- but the infrastruture has to exsist to support 30 or 300 ten year olds to cope with any changes in the distribution- all of which takes up valuable resources on mars- is this really the best way? Considering the level of technology we now have available, what would be wrong with instutiting "breeding" periods? It is only an accident of evolution that women have random fertility periods which has helped develop our social instutions (which technology is undoing)- why stick with an antiquated system developed for Earth style living?

Chances are that as soon as the kids reach, let's say, the age of 10 or 12 (earth years), they will begin assisting the adults in the various life-critical activities required to be performed within the colony, such as tending to the crops alongside their parents and so on and so forth.

So for ten years they are unproductive. For another ten they would only be half as productive as they learn the various sciences. Then another ten where they specialize in a specfic field. 30 years of no semi-usefulness with no guareentee of productivity,versus 30 years of a grown Terran adult with a proven record in their field BEFORE they come to Mars.

As many point out, there is little room for "dead weight" on Mars- is it wise to continually roll the dice with children?

What I meant by this statement is when the conditions for raising children becomes a bit more tolerable, so to speak, the natural instinct to have kids will kick in, and "traditional" families will come into existance...but I really don't see women having 4, 6 or 8 kids like we see in some 3rd world countries.

Settlers going to Mars are ostenabily doing so to start a new life- which usually entails a family. Maybe they won't have litters, but even if they are allowed to have 1 or 2 at the begining- each child is one more that must be supported- take a colony of 1000, if only 250 women (figure 50/50 on man woman ratio) have children (250 assumes half women have kids)- the colony now must support 250 PEOPLE who will do very little but consume resources. It only spirals from there. Also consider that people will be living in sterile cans, I can only imagine what the life expectancy is going to be...

How many "professionals" do you know that have large, rambunctious families? Most
have one or two kids, sometimes 3, but more than that, it's really quite rare, and it will be even more rare on Mars.

These proffesionals may be busy, but what will they do in their off time? Again, these are settlers going to make a new life...

Sure, there will be exceptions to the rule, and perhaps a top limit of 3 or 4 kids
would have to put into place, but this is unlikely. (Notice I said unlikely, which different than saying it will never happen.)

So then you agree that limits can be placed and enforced on reproduction of individuals if Society deems it. The number is always open for consideration- but the issue of wether or not your reproduction can be controlled is not (you at least seem to agree with me that it can be controlled legitamitly)

We know that Mars has a tremendous amount of water, and not all of it is frozen, as there's evidence of *liquid* water deep underground...hopefully the colonists will be smart enough to locate their community in a place where they could simply drill down and extract liquid water in copious quantities.

So then reproduction rate is tied directly to resource aquisition- therfore, it would behoove us to get the resources first before we allow the reproduction- all of this supports the theory that reproduction should be planned and controled by a central agency that can coordiante and establish what is available and what is possible to support any future population.

As for energy, wouldn't you think that the future Martians would have nuclear or fusion energy at their disposal?

Fusion does not exsist in a form that humans can use (other than the sun). And nuclear is FAR from free- it requires a level of technologicaly advanced infrastructure that makes nuclear far from cheap and easy.

.yes, it's unreasonable to think that you will see "breakway" communities develop right off the bat, but once the original settlement reaches a certain population level, I'm sure there will be "surplus" people to spare to start a new settlement,

If all population orignaly comes from immigration ( you said 100%) at first- how can there ever be "surplus" population? Surplus implies "extra" and unused people- if they are extra, why are they on Mars to begin with? The only surplus would come from unexpected immigration- or birth- so new communities would have to be readied and built for uncontrolled reproduction- what I am suggesting is a solution to avoid that unneccessary action.

as time progresses and the cost of space travel falls, which it certainly will, the pace of immigration to Mars will increase, and the new people will certainly be graceful to establish new places to live in conjuntion with the "natives" who know what they're up against...

But what will these people be doing on Mars? If they keep sending people, eventually there will be a sizeable potion that will come solely to start a life on Mars- which includes staring a family, which leads to uncontrolled reproduction and the eventual death spiral for a base.

I'm quite suprised to see this rather blunt statement from you...you really think that a child born on Mars will preclude a person coming from Earth??

Yes. Every person in space has to be supported with the neccessities of life, all of which have to be manufactured by man- not by nature. There can be only a finite carrying capacity of a base- each person in that base reduces the total available extra resources that can be used to support someone else- the children born on the base are no different. That means every child on Mars means one less person from earth can go to the base and be supported.

The more people born on Mars, the more Mars will be developed, and therefore, additional opportunities will be created for Earth immigrants in response to greater numbers of Martians born,

I acknoledge this point, however the same opportunity can be generated through immigration alone- which also has less of the negative consquences associated with reproduction. So why even allow reproduction?

Byron · 2002-07-08 15:38:55

Very well met, indeed, Clark...

I think many of our differences are related to different models of future Martian habitation / settlement, which I'll explain later. Anyhow...

If there are adverse health affects that preclude having children, dosen't that also preclude having colonists? The point being that any health affects that children might be exsposed to would neccessarily mean that the original colonists would be exposed to as well. I am of course assuming that such health affects will be solved prior or very shortly after a martian base is established. If the health risks are mitigated, then people would be free to have children unencumbered- it is exactly this freedom that could lead to an instability due to the strain caused by unepexected people who must be supported.

The point I was making was taking into consideration the health risks for children born and raised on Mars in the low gravity, lifetime exposure to high levels of raditiation, etc; these risks would probably be tolerable for people coming to Mars during adulthood, especially if they go back to Earth after a certain period of time, but not for raising children. I don't think many people would disagree with the fact that a great deal of research would have to take place on Mars before having children is a reasonable option to take, so in the early days of Mars settlement, having children really wouldn't be an option. It would be like putting the cart before the horse... So yes, I do concede that at least in the early going, reproduction would have to be restricted or regulated, especially if the settlement is a government-funded base like Antartica. I do not think that having children would be appropriate in that kind of setting, and I wouldn't think it would that big of an issue if these "settlers" had to agree in a contract or whatever before coming to Mars that they would not attempt to have children during their tenure on Mars.

NB: The viewpoint I'm angling from is the model of a "independently" founded colony or settlement, in which the primary goal is to establish an ongoing, multigenerational existance on Mars, growing over time like frontier settlements in the past. This would probably take place well after the initital publicy-funded missions have taken place and research bases are established (up to a century later, perhaps?) and after the potential colonists have a firm grip on resource location/extraction, as well as procuring a reliable, "cheap" energy source that would enable the support of a constantly growing community.

Please clarify, "feasible"- are you suggesting that individuals will see the appropriate time to have children? Wouldn't it be a wiser course of action to have a central authority DECIDE when that "feasible" moment has occured? Or should individuals be allowed to make that determination on their own- which means that they could reach that conclusion at any time- irregardles of an objectivce reality.

By "feasible" I mean when a signficant piece of infrastructure has been put in place, such as a full-scale dome capable of accomodating a significant number of people that haven't "arrived" yet, whether it be by birth or immigration. At this point, a suitable environment would have been created for having children, hence the first generation of "true-red" Martians would be born. As for deciding for who gets to "decide," what makes you think that some sort of "central authority" would be more rational than the individuals themselves? The people in power may not want people to have children (due to the fact they may not want kids themselves, or don't want to see the colony's resources devoted to raising children), although environmental conditions may permit it, and then you'l have serious dissention within the community. That would be bad. Imagine a desperate parent-to-be allowing all the crops in the greenhouses to freeze because they can't abide by the "unreasonable" reproductive laws that are being enforced upon them. Worse yet, the colony's leaders could be real child fanatics and ends up directing the citizenry to have too many kids, too fast. Best to establish some sort of free-market system, and let the people decide for themselves when it's best to have babies based on how much it "costs" to have them. Remember that having children is an ingrained instinct, however irrational it may be; and if we are talking about people making a *permanent* move to Mars to make a new life like colonists in the past, they WILL have kids sooner or later. A permanent colony will not be able to escape the fact people want to have families, however "inefficient" this may be. That is just the way it is with people...

Ah, but even ONE child results in an entire population being "stuck" on Mars. If for some reason the former earthlings need to leave, they might be able- the Martians natives will more than likely not have that option (physical limitations and immunity to diseases lacking). While it dosen;t prevent people from leaving, it unneccsarily complicates our flexibility.

If you're looking at this from the "Antarctic" model, I agree with you 100%. In the early going, people need to be able to come and go at will, and yes, having any children at all would greatly complicate matters. At some point, however, a permanent community will likely be established (provided that the human race continues to advance technology-wise in this regard), and the time will eventually come when the first children will be born on Mars.

Which is ineffecient- it means you are required to provide adquete care for all ages at all points- so sometimes you have 10 tenm year olds, other times you have 3 ten year olds- but the infrastructure has to exsist to support 30 or 300 ten year olds to cope with any changes in the distribution- all of which takes up valuable resources on mars- is this really the best way? Considering the level of technology we now have available, what would be wrong with instutiting "breeding" periods? It is only an accident of evolution that women have random fertility periods which has helped develop our social instutions (which technology is undoing)- why stick with an antiquated system developed for Earth style living?

Good point here. As long as we are talking about small-scale developments (<10,000 people), establishing an adaptable infrastructure to cope with varying numbers of different-aged children will indeed be problematic. But at this point, I think it's useful to consider the fact that if they've made it this far (creating a hospitable environment in order to have children in the first place), that making accomodations for 10 8-year-olds, and so on, really shouldn't be such a difficult task as opposed to all the other things that would have to be performed to carve out an existence on Mars. When it comes to kids, parents will do "whatever it takes" to provide for their children. However, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the colonists could end up agreeing in a democratic fashion to regulate the times when to have their kids...if this makes things easier as a whole, and they agree to it; I don't see this being a problem as long this is carried out in a reasonable, logical manner. Here on Earth, central "authorities" have a poor record in doing things in a reasonable fashion, so again, my opinion is to leave it up to the colonists themselves. This situation represents one of the rare circumstances in which "pure" democracy would be applicable, and while I do concede that the people could vote to pull the plug on having kids in the first place, I see this possibility as being extremely *unlikely*, and the most you'll probably see in the realm of reproductive control is the timing of when to have kids. As for the fact that the new generation of children being "unproductive," I think this is the ultimate price that the child-bearers, and indeed, the community as a whole will be more than willing to pay. That's how's it's been done for 1000's of years, and I don't see this being radically different on Mars. Another way of looking at this, is that the "true-reds" will be surely pushed far harder than their peers back on Earth for reasons of necessity. Instead of 30 years to reach full productivity, I say they'll make it there in 20. Native-borns won't moan and groan about how much they miss "the green hills of Earth," etc, etc; and in the long run, I think that the natives will produce more in their lifetimes on Mars than immigrants from Earth. Just because an Earth immigrant has a "proven track record" doesn't mean he or she will do well on Mars. They might end up hating it so much that they become depressed and unproductive, and have to return home in short order, which wouldn't very efficient, either.

Also consider that people will be living in sterile cans, I can only imagine what the life expectancy is going to be...

Again, we're looking at this from different viewpoints here. Nobody in their right mind would want to have a kid during the "tin-can" stage. That will come when the first large-scale dome or equivalently enclosed habitat is built, trees and grass and all. Big difference there..lol.

So then you agree that limits can be placed and enforced on reproduction of individuals if Society deems it. The number is always open for consideration- but the issue of wether or not your reproduction can be controlled is not (you at least seem to agree with me that it can be controlled legitamitly)
So then reproduction rate is tied directly to resource aquisition- therfore, it would behoove us to get the resources first before we allow the reproduction- all of this supports the theory that reproduction should be planned and controled by a central agency that can coordiante and establish what is available and what is possible to support any future population.

Yes, when my hypothetical first permanent colony is in the process of being built, I would say that some sort of general consensus would have to come about to determine when the intitial "go-ahead" will be given to begin having kids, and if it comes to the actual survival of the settlers, yes, I concede that reproductive regulation may be necessary. However, I'm looking at it from a temporary standpoint (think: food rations during WWII), and as soon as conditions permit, the decision to have kids would be turned over to the populace (returning to a free market at the conclusion of WWII.) At least that is what I think will make the most sense in a rational, logical manner. Let the "mothering" types have the most kids, and leave the "no-kids" types do whatever they came to Mars to do in the first place. Freedom is an important element in any rapidly growing/developing society, and I don't see why this should be any different on Mars. I really don't see our colonists breeding themselves into a malthusian meltdown, imho. I sincerely hope our future Martians would be smart enough to avoid that kind of scenario.

'Nuff said...for now...

B

clark · 2002-07-09 08:46:04

The point I was making was taking into consideration the health risks for children born and raised on Mars in the low gravity, lifetime exposure to high levels of raditiation, etc; these risks would probably be tolerable for people coming to Mars during adulthood, especially if they go back to Earth after a certain period of time, but not for raising children.

Then what point would there be in settling Mars if you can't have children for the first century? Dosen't that preclude settlement, which means that if we started today, it wouldn't be until 2102 that familes could start on Mars. If that's the case, and this is your time-frame, there is little point in a discussion that will be made meaningless by unknown future events and/or technology. ???

So yes, I do concede that at least in the early going, reproduction would have to be restricted or regulated, especially if the settlement is a government-funded base like Antartica.

Who then restricts or regulates the reproduction? Who and how is it decided that such regulations may end? I envisioned a central authority that would determine all of this- an authority that is created at the begining of any Martian settlement. Now, I have never stated how such a central authority should be constutited, or how it would represent the wishes of the population- only that a central authority can, and should regulate reproduction for the long term stability of the base. We at least seem to agree in principle, if not in totality.

This would probably take place well after the initital publicy-funded missions have taken place and research bases are established (up to a century later, perhaps?) and after the potential colonists have a firm grip on resource location/extraction, as well as procuring a reliable, "cheap" energy source that would enable the support of a constantly growing community.

Again, would we leave this decision to each individual to decide wheter or not the stability point has been reached, or would a central and nonbiased authority make that determination based on the facts- which would be the wiser course of action?

By "feasible" I mean when a signficant piece of infrastructure has been put in place, such as a full-scale dome capable of accomodating a significant number of people that haven't "arrived" yet, whether it be by birth or immigration.

But you see, your feasible might not be my feasible- and vice versa. You have certain expectations that you hope others have, but there is no guareentee of this (why anarchy fails by the way), so it behooves us to have an impartial third party that can decide for us.

The people in power may not want people to have children (due to the fact they may not want kids themselves, or don't want to see the colony's resources devoted to raising children), although environmental conditions may permit it, and then you'l have serious
dissention within the community. That would be bad.

A central authority is NOT a dictatorship- a central authority is our own damn government that we democratically (sort of) elect. How the central authority is created, operated, and regulated itself is a seperate issue. I am discussing the specfic issue of wheter or not martian reproduction should be regulated.

Imagine a desperate parent-to-be allowing all the crops in the greenhouses to freeze because they can't abide by the "unreasonable" reproductive laws that are being enforced upon them.

Imagine food riots, water riots, power riots, air riots- all for the sake of our children... becuase too many were born and so we can't support everyone... A Parent is much worse than a parent to be, by any scale.

Best to establish some sort of free-market system, and let the people decide for themselves when it's best to have babies based on how much it "costs" to have them. .

Yes, much better to only allows those with enough mooney to have children- because applying a capitalistic "free-market" system to reproduction is ethical and equitable... The ability to have children should not be dictated by your socio-economic status, that is arbitrary and only serves to expand the role of economic slavery. I am familiar with KSR's proposal, and it is just a repugnant. It reduces life to a ticket ride.

Remember that having children is an ingrained instinct, however irrational it may be; and if we are talking about people making a *permanent* move to Mars to make a new life like colonists in the past, they WILL have kids sooner or later.

I DO remember that reproduction is ingrained- this whole discussion is ABOUT that! Since it is so ingrained, it behooves us to look for means to control and regulate it so it is not our own undoing. We are THINKING animals, which means we are able to master ourselves, our instincts- to overcome whatever problem we face- that is our advantage. We ignore our birth-right if we do not take control of this.

At some point, however, a permanent community will likely be established (provided that the human race continues to advance technology-wise in this regard), and the time will
eventually come when the first children will be born on Mars.

Is it wise to allow one selfish individual to make that monumental decision for all of us?

But at this point, I think it's useful to consider the fact that if they've made it this far (creating a hospitable environment in order to have children in the first place), that making
accomodations for 10 8-year-olds, and so on, really shouldn't be such a difficult task as opposed to all the other things that would have to be performed to carve out an existence on Mars.

One, they will be living in a tin can (or dome) which is little more than a buried box with some windows. This is not magic- this is just pressurized environments. Two, having children living in these conditions is incredibly dangerous to the ENTIRE colony. Adults can think rationaly, there can be certain expectations on what they will and will not do- children are inquisitive by nature- it is not outside the realm of possibility that a child gets into the wrong thing and the colony is threatened- so children would have to be heavily supervised to make sure they didn't get into anything they shouldn't (could you imaghine a kid with a gun in a dome...)

However, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the colonists could end up agreeing in a democratic fashion to regulate the times when to have their kids...if this makes things easier as a whole, and they agree to it; I don't see this being a problem as long this is carried out in a reasonable, logical manner.

Ahh, but the problem with this manner is that each individual will vote based on biased selfish desires- so everyone who wants kids will vote to have kids, irregardless of the objective reality of what the colony can support. Isn't a third party, without the bias, a better judge?

Here on Earth, central "authorities" have a poor record in doing things in a reasonable fashion, so again, my opinion is to leave it up to the colonists themselves.

individuals have a poor record as well.

Just because an Earth immigrant has a "proven track record" doesn't mean he or she will do well on Mars. They might end up hating it so much that they become depressed and unproductive, and have to return home in short order, which wouldn't very efficient, either.

True, but just becuase they are born on Mars dosen't mean they will be more productive either. However, with a track record of any kind, you can at least make a somewhat informaed guess as to what will happen. I guess it is a matter of how much you like to gamble.

Nobody in their right mind would want to have a kid during the "tin-can" stage.

No one in their right mind should want to live in a pressurized environment in a near vacum bathed in deadly radiation on a world with a more than likely debilitating gravity.

Yes, when my hypothetical first permanent colony is in the process of being built, I would say that some sort of general consensus would have to come about to determine when the intitial "go-ahead" will be given to begin having kids, and if it comes to the actual survival of the settlers, yes, I concede that reproductive regulation may be necessary.

Thank you. One down, 6.4 billion to go...

Byron · 2002-07-10 08:11:01

Clark, I have to hand it to you...you do make some very convincing arguments...

However, I have just a couple of additional thoughts I'd like to add, mainly for the purpose of clarification...

Then what point would there be in settling Mars if you can't have children for the first century? Dosen't that preclude settlement, which means that if we started today, it wouldn't be until 2102 that familes could start on Mars. If that's the case, and this is your time-frame, there is little point in a discussion that will be made meaningless by unknown future events and/or technology.

I didn't mean that families wouldn't begin on Mars for a full century after "First Landing," although I wouldn't be surprised if this is indeed the case. Considering how difficult just getting to Mars, considering *today's* technology, really is, I think it's obvious to everyone that visits this board that it will take a long and extensive progression of events and advances in technology before actual, self-sustaining settlements are built on Mars, which represents the logical starting point (from my own personal viewpoint, anyhow) for Martian families to begin. Of course we're talking about the "unknown" here...there's still so much to be learned about Mars and its environment (think: we still have yet to perform a low-g experiment to determine how mammals reproduce in that kind of environment), that any type of discussion of this nature has to be based on conjecture at this point...so I base my arguments on what I think is the most likely scenario that will come about on Mars sometime in the future.

The central point I was attempting to illustrate to you is that in light of past and current trends of society, that future Martian settlements will have little need for a so-called "central authority" to regulate the number of children born in the community, as I think this will be a self-regulating process. If people can't control their individual actions to the point of causing irreparable damage to their own community, then they have no business coming to Mars in the first place.

However...and this is where I do admit that I am in agreement with you...that if conditions do warrant it, that reproductive control would be necessary. I am merely stating that I think this would be unlikely as human society has done well enough (at least in modern times) to support each new generation of children, while still moving "forward" in the general sense of the word. Is there any reason why this wouldn't be different on Mars? Two families have the first two kids on Mars...as they grow up, more resources are created to accomodate their growth, even as more children are born. And this process continues, in greater and greater numbers. If we are able to meet the challenges of carving out an existance on Mars, we should be able to meet the challenges of a domestically growing population (with parents having kids whenever they are personally 'ready'). Again, I am merely stating that is the most likely scenario; not what will actually happen with certainty.

While I am a very strong advocate of "individual rights" (the libertarian model), I would have to say that Life does have Intrinsic Value...after all, if we're not alive, everything is made irrelevant. Now, that would suck.

So, life comes first, then the freedom to live independently...however, sometimes these fundamental values do come into conflict with each other, and then we are left to determine what is "good" and what is "bad." <is abortion "good"?> <is injecting a 100% terminally ill patient with an overdose of painkiller "bad"?> This is where we have to leave the good ol' logic behind and move on to something else... These are the questions we must answer on a continuing basis, and these issues will be even more painfully evident on Mars. Will this be difficult? Yes. Impossible? I would surely hope not. Do we still have a long ways to go as a "Society" (which is really just the aggregate of human individuals)? Yes. But there is no limit to what the human race can achieve, if we put our minds to it...

B

clark · 2002-07-10 08:32:29

Considering how difficult just getting to Mars, considering *today's* technology, really is, I think it's obvious to everyone that visits this board that it will take a long and extensive progression of events and advances in technology before actual, self-sustaining settlements are built on Mars, which represents the logical starting point (from my own personal viewpoint, anyhow) for Martian families to begin.

Actually, this is an experience on this board hat has actually caused me to see the need for independant third parties- everyone has a different view on where we are, and what we can do. My "realistic" is not your "realistic", which means we need someone who can tell us both what IS "realistic".

If people can't control their individual actions to the point of causing irreparable damage to their own community, then they have no business coming to Mars in the first place.

Those people have no business BEING. Seriously thouh, when a person is born, they are here- we have to deal with the reality of that situation. They are now alive and entitled to unalienable rights granted by the intrinsic worth of life. However, once the person has been born, the damage has been done. The "irresponsible" people who have damaged the community have commited the act- my pointn completely isd to prevent or mitigate this occurance. I'll explain the obvious neccessity later.

I am merely stating that I think this would be unlikely as human society has done well enough (at least in modern times) to support each new generation of children, while still moving "forward" in the general sense of the word. Is there any reason why this wouldn't be different on Mars?

And I am extrapolating out from my basic premise for Mars: The environment will dictate how we live, and how we function. Evolution stoped for us the day we could take control of our environment- it ceased to be a shaping influence. Mars returns us to the evolutionary wrung where the environment dictates how we develop. That is the fundamanetal shift when we transistion to Mars- old social behaviors MUST adapt to the new reality of the Martian environment.

We will be living in controled environments whereby we try to maintain a balance between what goes in and what goes out. The key here is BALANCE. The high level of technology and material needed to live on Mars only furthers this neccessity- we have to have planned communities, otherwise everyone could die.

the previous earth experience is to simply "up and move" as the pressure for competing for the same resources increases. But that was and is relatively easy here- you go outside and start walking. Mars is a different ball game- you have to have all the infrastructure to support life- habs, power, air generators, the people with the neccessary and very specialized skills- on earth all we had to have was a rock and some fire- and the most basic rudimentary skills.

Earth, an individual can provide for themself, therfore, their liberty can be guarented by themselves- thus our concept of individual liberty. On mars, no one individual can provide for themself- their is an interdependance which reduces individual liberty because everyone becomes NECCESSARY to our own personal survival- their behavior directly affects our personal chances for survival. This is what is at the heart of everything that I have been talking about.

Palomar · 2002-07-10 12:01:03

Clark: I am not stating that people should be forced to stop reproducing, I am suggesting that a centralized authority must be able to REGULATE and CONTROL population growth

*Which is forcing people to stop reproducing. If people are not free to decide for themselves whether they will have a child or not, and regulations and controls are imposed on them, that is force; "regulations and controls" are words which seek to downplay and whitewash the agenda of force.

Clark: The baby should also be removed from the parents-

*So who's going to take care of and raise the child then? And how will you determine WHO gets to take care of the baby in lieu of it being taken from its parents? And why should the baby be punished by being taken away from the one person it's bonded with the most -- its mother?

Clark: this would act a deterrence

*This would act as a cause for a riot, is more like it.

Clark: becuase why have a baby if you can't raise it

*Who says the parents can't raise it? Just because a child was conceived and born despite attention to birth control methods? The only sure birth control method is abstinence. All forms of birth control, i.e. IUDs, condoms, foams and jellies, diaphragms, etc., do NOT have a 100% guarantee of conception control. "Nature finds a way" -- babies are occasionally conceived despite the most consistently careful attention to birth control prevention. This is no basis for claiming "they can't raise it."

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-10 12:27:59

Clark: I am not stating that people should be forced to stop reproducing, I am suggesting that a centralized authority must be able to REGULATE and CONTROL population growth
*Which is forcing people to stop reproducing. If people are not free to decide for themselves whether they will have a child or not, and regulations and controls are imposed on them, that is force; "regulations and controls" are words which seek to downplay and whitewash the agenda of force.

We have laws and groups that regulate and control the expression of speech, is that US being FORCED not to speak? If people are not free to decide for themselves weter or not they wish to speak, and in what manner, and regulationa and control are imposed on them, that is force- do you hold that the people in the US then do not have a right to free speech? Do you also further hold that the government is forcing us to not speak freely? That is what your argument implies if extrapolated.

Regulating a right is well within the bounds of society- it is the only way a society CAN function. Just becuase the moment you are allowed to conceive is regulated is not a denial of the right to reproduce. You'll have to do better than that.

*So who's going to take care of and raise the child then?

If birth is regulated, that means there are those who will be waiting for the opportunity to reproduce- this regulation will only serve to increase the perceived value of children- it's not a simple act of having one. Therefore, I think I can logicaly assume that there should be quite a few people who would take the opportunity to raise the child.

And how will you determine WHO gets to take care of the baby in lieu of it being
taken from its parents?

We have people who do that now, I am certain a fair and equitable system can be developed.

And why should the baby be punished by being taken away from the one person it's bonded with the most -- its mother?

Why should the parent be rewarded for disobeying the laws and endangering the rest of the community? Why allow that parent to corrupt their child with similar attitudes? ( a weak point, I will grant you)

Children can bond with anyone, and in my mind, the child would be removed from the care of their parents as soon as the offense is discovered.

*This would act as a cause for a riot, is more like it.

Perhaps, but if everyone knows the rules, how can they be legitametly upset when they are punished for what they know is unacceptable? You would serve your argument better if you could demonstarte how this might somehow be unjust.

*Who says the parents can't raise it?

They shouldn't be able to- it acts as a deterrence for people so they are less likely to break the reproduction rules. Why have a child if it will be taken away from you? It would be senseless.

All forms of birth control, i.e. IUDs, condoms, foams and jellies, diaphragms, etc., do NOT have a 100% guarantee of conception control. "Nature finds a way" -- babies are occasionally conceived despite the most consistently careful attention to birth control prevention.

[Sigh] I never mentioned that there wouldn't be some form of recource to allow for accidental birth- I am merely addressing the issue of the legitmacy of controling and regulating reproduction in order to maintain a stable and viable martian base. How it is composed, what manner of checks and balances it has, what it's responsibilities are- all of this is a seperate issue to be decided later.

First you establish the rights and the boundaries- then you establish a means for equitable and fair treatment for all.

don't put the car before the horse, and don't put words into my mouth.

Palomar · 2002-07-10 12:50:09

CLARK: I am not stating that people should be forced to stop reproducing, I am suggesting that a centralized authority must be able to REGULATE and CONTROL population growth

ME: Which is forcing people to stop reproducing. If people are not free to decide for themselves whether they will have a child or not, and regulations and controls are imposed on them, that is force; "regulations and controls" are words which seek to downplay and whitewash the agenda of force.

CLARK: We have laws and groups that regulate and control the expression of speech, is that US being FORCED not to speak? If people are not free to decide for themselves weter or not they wish to speak, and in what manner, and regulationa and control are imposed on them, that is force- do you hold that the people in the US then do not have a right to free speech? Do you also further hold that the government is forcing us to not speak freely? That is what your argument implies if extrapolated.

*Smokescreens; we're not talking about those issues. Now, getting back to *the* issue at hand: You claim you are not advocating people being forced to stop reproducing [I shared my own thoughts on this matter in a previous post in this thread, some days ago], yet you do want "controls and regulations." Controls and regulations are methods of force, any way you look at it. Either/or, Clark.

CLARK: Regulating a right is well within the bounds of society- it is the only way a society CAN function.

*I was simply pointing out that controls and regulations are a form of force -- which you were trying to deny.

ME: And why should the baby be punished by being taken away from the one person it's bonded with the most -- its mother?

CLARK: Why should the parent be rewarded for disobeying the laws and endangering the rest of the community?

*Why are you assuming the parents are being "rewarded"? What if the conception and birth was accidental? Maybe they don't want the burden of taking care of a child, but they also don't want the child taken from them.

CLARK: Why allow that parent to corrupt their child with similar attitudes? ( a weak point, I will grant you)

*You make such preposterous assumptions.

CLARK: Children can bond with anyone, and in my mind, the child would be removed from the care of their parents as soon as the offense is discovered.

*The child will still carry the trauma of forcible separation from its mother.

ME: This would act as a cause for a riot, is more like it.

CLARK: Perhaps, but if everyone knows the rules, how can they be legitametly upset when they are punished for what they know is unacceptable? You would serve your argument better if you could demonstarte how this might somehow be unjust.

*I already have. Supposing the conception was ACCIDENTAL.

CLARK: They shouldn't be able to- it acts as a deterrence for people so they are less likely to break the reproduction rules. Why have a child if it will be taken away from you? It would be senseless.

*Yes, it'd sure be senseless to have a child, only to have it taken away from you. Which won't work anyway, if the birth parents and child are within the same settlement or in nearby settlements -- blood is thicker than water, you wouldn't really be able to separate them. Besides, I don't think children on Mars will be a major issue [as per my previous post a few days ago in this thread].

CLARK: [Sigh] I never mentioned that there wouldn't be some form of recource to allow for accidental birth- I am merely addressing the issue of the legitmacy of controling and regulating reproduction in order to maintain a stable and viable martian base.

*Fine. But at least please be honest that "regulations and controls" ARE a form of force.

CLARK: First you establish the rights and the boundaries- then you establish a means for equitable and fair treatment for all.

*Forcing a baby away from its birth mother doesn't strike me as being "equitable and fair treatment" to the innocent child who will suffer trauma from the initial separation.

CLARK: Don't put the car before the horse, and don't put words into my mouth.

*Oh, don't worry, I know you don't need any help from me. By the way, I think you meant the CART before the horse -- ?

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-10 13:12:54

*Smokescreens; we're not talking about those issues. Now, getting back to *the* issue at hand: You claim you are not advocating people being forced to stop reproducing [I shared my own thoughts on this matter in a previous post in this thread, some days ago], yet you do want "controls and regulations."

Not smokescreens, comparisons. I am not advocating the type of control or force you seem to be inplying with your argument, that is why i refrenced current controls and regulations regarding free speech. But I will agree with you (to do otherwise is just plain silly), regulation and control is a function of force used by society to establish order and maintain boundaries between our individual liberty and rights. What I am advocating does not violate this principle we all readily accept, and I fail to see the value in why you point this out.

*I was simply pointing out that controls and regulations are a form of force -- which you were trying to deny.

Okay, I don't deny it. But it is the same kind of force that exsists with jay-walking ordinances, smoking bans, saftey restraint rules, free speech rules of conduct, etc. So what's your point?

What if the conception and birth was accidental? Maybe they don't want the burden
of taking care of a child, but they also don't want the child taken from them.

Someone smarter and wiser than I will have to field this question- I honestly don't know what should be done if the parent DOSEN"T WANT a child, but also DOSEN"T WANT to give the child up. What other choices exsist?

CLARK: Why allow that parent to corrupt their child with similar attitudes? ( a weak point, I will grant you)
*You make such preposterous assumptions.

Really? We hold in US society that crack addicted mothers who trade sexual favors for money make poor parents, we regularly remove the children from their homes to protect the child's welfare, which is all inclusive. Generaly, society has held criminals make bad parents, and we tend to limit their involvement with their own off-spring. Are you suggesting that this is not a wise policy? I know it is a weak point with this SITUATION- but in both instances we are dealing with a criminal who has displayed no regard for the rule of law, or the welfare of others within society.

*The child will still carry the trauma of forcible separation from its mother.

That would be the mothers fault for disobeying Society needlessly. It's sad, but why should Society be stuck with this guilt? Society is RESPONDING- the individual who had the child is the criminal, they are the one that ACTED.

*I already have. Supposing the conception was ACCIDENTAL.

Then there would be evidence that would demonstrate either guilt or innocence- if it is an accident, then more than likely the people will report it,... I suggested that a court system is not outside the realm of possibility.

Which won't work anyway, if the birth parents and child are within the same settlement or in nearby settlements -- blood is thicker than water, you wouldn't really be able to separate them.

Without more concrete details, I am unable to offer a plausible solution for seperating the people. However, human history is filled with much experience with this act- I'm sure they will find a suitable solution.

*Forcing a baby away from its birth mother doesn't strike me as being "equitable and fair treatment" to the innocent child who will suffer trauma from the initial separation.

True, but that's the fault of the parents, not society. Obviously they would make horrible parents becuase they have showed a complete and total lack of regard for the child becuase they know what the result will be for the child. This system, and this attitude, forces people to take responsibility for their action- the victim is the baby AND society- society only enforces the rules.

Palomar · 2002-07-10 13:36:49

CLARK: But I will agree with you (to do otherwise is just plain silly), regulation and control is a function of force

*Thanks.

CLARK: used by society to establish order and maintain boundaries between our individual liberty and rights. What I am advocating does not violate this principle we all readily accept, and I fail to see the value in why you point this out.

*I was simply pointing out the untruth of your having said "regulations and controls aren't force."

CLARK: But it is the same kind of force that exsists with jay-walking ordinances, smoking bans, saftey restraint rules, free speech rules of conduct, etc. So what's your point?

*There's a tremendous difference between a baby, which is the biological offspring of 2 people and is a human being, versus walking across the road the wrong way or smoldering cigarettes.

ME: "What if the conception and birth was accidental? Maybe they don't want the burden of taking care of a child, but they also don't want the child taken from them.

CLARK: Someone smarter and wiser than I will have to field this question- I honestly don't know what should be done if the parent DOSEN"T WANT a child, but also DOSEN"T WANT to give the child up. What other choices exsist?

*I didn't say they don't want the child. I said "maybe they don't want the BURDEN of taking care of a child;" in other words, having to meet the demands and challenges of caring for a child wasn't on the agenda, and they aren't looking forward to the burdens of child care, *BUT* they do love the child, have bonded with it, and plan to do their best by the child; so, of course, they will not want the child taken away from them.

ME: You make such preposterous assumptions.

CLARK: Really? We hold in US society that crack addicted mothers who trade sexual favors for money make poor parents, we regularly remove the children from their homes to protect the child's welfare, which is all inclusive.

*We're talking about settlers/colonists on Mars, not the USA. You're diverting again.

CLARK: Generaly, society has held criminals make bad parents, and we tend to limit their involvement with their own off-spring. Are you suggesting that this is not a wise policy? I know it is a weak point with this SITUATION- but in both instances we are dealing with a criminal who has displayed no regard for the rule of law, or the welfare of others within society.

*Again: Children on Mars will be a tough prospect all the way around. I doubt they will be factor in Marsian life for quite some time; I addressed those issues in a previous post. And if a couple goofs up and a baby is born, they are to be branded CRIMINALS? That's going too far. I doubt Marsians will face troubles with birth rates for a very, very long time. We're not even sure how the lower Marsian gravity will effect the labor and delivery process, if the lack of our moon and its effect on the tides and women's reproductive cycles will screw up menstrual periods on Mars; then there are the special requirements children on Mars will need.

Lack of population control won't be an issue for a very, very long time.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-11 11:38:33

*I was simply pointing out the untruth of your having said "regulations and controls aren't force."

And I still fail to see the significance of why you point this out since the regultions and control is the same as we here on Earth are now subjected to (in general, as part of a society). You are pointing out that it will be no different (regulation and control) on Mars.

CLARK: But it is the same kind of force that exsists with jay-walking ordinances, smoking bans, saftey restraint rules, free speech rules of conduct, etc. So what's your point?
*There's a tremendous difference between a baby, which is the biological offspring of 2 people and is a human being, versus walking across the road the wrong way or smoldering cigarettes.

The difference is not related to regulation and control. All human behavior is subject to societal regulationa and control- it is the only way to maintain freedom for all.

I said "maybe they don't want the BURDEN of taking care of a child;" in other words, having to meet the demands and challenges of caring for a child wasn't on the agenda, and they aren't looking forward to the burdens of child care, *BUT* they do love the child, have bonded with it, and plan to do their best by the child; so, of course, they will not want the child taken away from them.

I understand, but it is a pointless statement. You present a situation where the people have yet to make a final choice- either they want the baby, or they don't. If they do, then they can try to do something about it, if they don't, they can try and do something about it. What do you want me to say? Following my principles for this discussion, the central authority would take the child unless it was contested by the parents, which would then lead to remediation and a settlement of the dispute by a arbitrary third party.

CLARK: Really? We hold in US society that crack addicted mothers who trade sexual favors for money make poor parents, we regularly remove the children from their homes to protect the child's welfare, which is all inclusive.
*We're talking about settlers/colonists on Mars, not the USA. You're diverting again.

No, I'm trying to make a point by making an analogy. It has been found justifiable and in socities interest to limit certain people from raising their off-spring if they pose a danger to their welfare. People reproducing without permission endanger an entire Martian base- they have already shown a disregard for the welfare of others, so they have demonstrated that they are not "fit" for parenthood (which is all about worrying about the welfare of another) based on their action.

*Again: Children on Mars will be a tough prospect all the way around. I doubt they will be factor in Marsian life for quite some time; I addressed those issues in a previous post.

I have not, and am not disputing this. I am discussing wheter or not a Martian Society has the right to regulate reproduction given the environmental reality.

And if a couple goofs up and a baby is born, they are to be branded CRIMINALS?

No, I already suugested that "accidents" could be established and guilt would still have to be established in a court.

Lack of population control won't be an issue for a very, very long time.

Says you. I don't care if it is or isn't, this discussion is about the right of reproduction and wheter or not Society has the right to regulate reproduction of individuals. So saying it "won't be a probelm" dosen't add anything meaningful to the discussion.

TioRay · 2002-07-11 22:32:57

Clark.

I once had a girl friend like you. When we would go on holidays there would be 3 days of pure torture before the trip. She would say "and what if this happens and what if that happens". She would pack 10 times the required luggage, make a note book full of notes and generally make a huge fuss over absolutely nothing....YOU are by far in a class of your own and I'm sure you never leave the room you are now in....I have a sneaking suspicion you are a bubble boy.

some of the scenarios and solutions you have posted above are right out there and I can only think you must come from a completely dysfunctional family.

I admit I didn't read all your posts but from the many I did read I know you are in deep trouble buddy....Taking peoples baby's away too serve as an example to the rest of the colony? I must have missed something....sounds like the Mars colony is in deep (you know what) up to their necks.

And what will you do if there is a shortage of babies?....start a government rape gang?...that was a joke in bad taste....problem is I'm sure you have considered it.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a little kid. Look....this is how they will handle it....just like adults....simple as that Clark.

If the populations growing too fast or too slow....don't worry Clark.....they will muddle their way thru it just as they will the billions of other tedious problems they will face, just as we do.

clark · 2002-07-15 12:08:18

Muddle their way through like adults?

Very convincing argument, you prove your intellectual superiority. I bow to your obvious and extensive wisdom... blah blah blah.

Reductionist arguments are pretty, and all neat and simple- a great method of dealing with a problem by expressly not dealing with it.

I have pointed to an obvious problem that will persist for any space colony, to which I am given: "No, it won't be a probelm!" Or," that is unconsionable, we can't do that!" Or, "it might be a problem, but so what, they'll figure something out."

In each case, the argument does not deal with the identified problem, i.e. uncontrolled reproduction and the threat it poses to an environment that must, by definition and neccessity, be carefully controlled and regulated. I suggest you, and anyone else too squimish to deal with the reality of what I am pointing out, deal with your personal issues and provide credible evidence as to why this will not be a concern.

You suggest the adults will muddle through, I suggest you act like an adult and demonstrate how they would muddle through.

Oh, and I think you are really nic TioRay. I will be your friend, don't worry.

Adrian · 2002-07-15 12:12:56

As I have mentioned in other threads, I'm not going to put up with this. TioRay, if you insist on trolling threads, then your posts will just be deleted and eventually you'll get banned. If you actually want to contribute to discussions here, please consider sitting back for a while to read what's already been said and get a feel for the tone of these forums. Further off-topic posts will get deleted.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-03 13:24:28

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#2 2002-07-03 13:33:07

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#3 2002-07-03 22:54:21

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#4 2002-07-04 05:14:10

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#5 2002-07-05 10:01:37

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#6 2002-07-05 11:19:26

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#7 2002-07-05 12:04:23

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#8 2002-07-05 12:41:11

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#9 2002-07-07 06:58:02

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#10 2002-07-08 07:08:57

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#11 2002-07-08 09:14:15

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#12 2002-07-08 09:55:34

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#13 2002-07-08 15:38:55

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#14 2002-07-09 08:46:04

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#15 2002-07-10 08:11:01

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#16 2002-07-10 08:32:29

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#17 2002-07-10 12:01:03

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#18 2002-07-10 12:27:59

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#19 2002-07-10 12:50:09

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#20 2002-07-10 13:12:54

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#21 2002-07-10 13:36:49

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#22 2002-07-11 11:38:33

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#23 2002-07-11 22:32:57

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#24 2002-07-15 12:08:18

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#25 2002-07-15 12:12:56

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

Board footer