Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

JammerG55 · 2004-04-28 14:13:28

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?

Even in the pioneer days the children didnt do nothing they had to help out as much as possible. you could have the children work in the kitchens and they would be in school-
that is, presuming that there would even be schools.

FrankPoole · 2004-05-17 19:46:18

I can't imagine that once could force birth control without the sort of draconian measures used by the Chinese government. What about the Catholic and Mormon colonists? Such a concept is against their beliefs. I opine that the idea of a Malthusian meltdown is highly unlikely. Indeed, the rapid growth of children would probably be an incentive for further expansion of the colony more than anything else. (in this regard, I'm referring to infrastructure such as building, greenhouses, exports, etc)

JammerG55 · 2004-05-18 11:44:58

'Zactily

clark · 2004-05-18 11:58:25

Would it be an incentive to expand? Yes. But here is the fundamental problem, infrastructure is required prior to any actual expansion.

It seems, because of peoples beliefs, that it would be sacrosanct to approach the control of reproduction in a hostile environment non-conducive to life.

There is an issue of saftey for all involved, but we can't do anything about it because some book about some god says we can't.

You have a habitat that can safely support X number of people. You can only create new living areas and habitable space to improve the number of people you can support at an X rate. If the number of people that a habitat must support exceeds the rate of construction, then the habitats will have to support more people beyond their carrying capcity. that threatens the life of everyone.

Homeless people can't go live outside. For every man, woman and child, there must be available back-up measures to ensure their survival in case of emergency evacuations or other catastrophes. The fact that Mars will not have a large infrastructure upon which it can build the neccessary items it needs (for a very long time it will be dependant uipon Earth shipments), it must plan well in advance for any new constructions.

You can't do this willy nilly.

Going and colonizing Mars will require sacrifices, and changes in our own behavior in order to thrive in this environment. It will not be easy, and most people will not welcome these changes. You need a better exscuse than "because my invisible god told me so."

Aetius · 2004-05-18 16:50:14

I have to agree with Clark. Infrastructure expansion MUST be a high priority for any hypothetical Martian colony. The colony cannot drastically improve its self-sufficiency unless it can grow its population to the point where it can support many, many specialists...among other things.

However, we are not talking about suburban America here. This is Mars, an achingly beautiful desert planet, frost-bitten, dusty, and drenched with radiation. The colony can only provide so much breathable air, feed so many mouths, process so much human feces. That's the reality, personal views on reproductive rights aside.

Most of us would have to compromise some of our long-held principles, if we wished to survive for long in such a place.

Some of us would need to give up our right to own personal guns. Some of us would need to sacrifice our cherished right to privacy. And some of us would have to give up the right to have babies whenever we feel like it.

I think child-bearing should be a licensed activity, in an environment like a Martian colony. However, since the colony MUST grow or eventually die, I believe the infrastructure will accomodate the Martian birth rate. Expansion will be that big of a priority.

FrankPoole · 2004-05-19 20:02:12

Probably, early colonists will voluntarily regulate birth through fertility control. While it is difficult to prognosticate about infrastructure and life support requirements, I'm referring to the issues of birth control say, when the colony might be several hundred strong. It seems that an economy of scale would develop when building a dome for 1000 inhabitants versus 20 people, bringing down the cost of children significantly.
So, once the INITIAL problems are resolved-the questions regarding giving birth and raising a child in 1/3 gravity, and the resources to support the child from a medical/educational standpoint, the issue of state-regulated birth control might come up.
I'm skeptical that the previously mentioned parties would be very accepting of someone trying to push morality down their throats by regulating or licensing births. I'd also opine that such regulations might lead to a slippery slope (again, referring China) where couples with the unwanted child might be pressured to abort or heavily fined. Finally, licensing births through the government would lead to the typical absurd interference, as officials create complex regulations as to what a "responsible" parent is.
Assuming that at this point martian infrastructure is sufficiently developed, I think it's possible that such regulations might lead to groups founding separate settlements without birth restrictions-the outcomes might be interesting.

Alt2War · 2004-05-24 17:05:48

Any martian colony with 500 people or fewer will not be challenged with keeping their population numbers in check, but rather simply maintaining a less than negative fertility rate.

The issue will not be "How do we keep people from having kids." The issue will rather be "How can we encourage more people to have more babies"

In order to maintain a steady population, every couple must have at least 2 children. If you have people who remain single or choose not to have childen, then those couples must make up for their lack of breeding, requiring people to have 3-4 childen to just maintain the same number of colonists in the second generation as the first.

clark · 2004-05-25 15:53:27

So an interesting twist.... should homo-sexuals and non-fertile individuals be allowed to emigrate to Mars if the goal is to colonize the planet?

The issue becomes more thorny for those born on Mars, but I wonder what people think about actively denying people the opportunity to go and colonize Mars if they can't contribute to any eventual Martian population through natural reproduction?

Josh Cryer · 2004-05-25 17:32:22

The question about who is "allowed to immigrate somewhere" is more dependent on the ability to travel there and their level of acceptance. If homosexuals can get to Mars, it would be quite unfortunate for close minded egotistical jerks to banish them or whatever for getting there. My suspicion is that Mars would simply be this open space where any type of person could go.

Assuming they had the resources to get there.

Alt2War · 2004-05-26 12:33:36

The question about who is "allowed to immigrate somewhere" is more dependent on the ability to travel there and their level of acceptance. If homosexuals can get to Mars, it would be quite unfortunate for close minded egotistical jerks to banish them or whatever for getting there. My suspicion is that Mars would simply be this open space where any type of person could go.
Assuming they had the resources to get there.

Also, whenever Homosexuals move into a neighborhood, the property values go up!

Bill White · 2004-05-26 14:19:14

The question about who is "allowed to immigrate somewhere" is more dependent on the ability to travel there and their level of acceptance. If homosexuals can get to Mars, it would be quite unfortunate for close minded egotistical jerks to banish them or whatever for getting there. My suspicion is that Mars would simply be this open space where any type of person could go.
Assuming they had the resources to get there.

Settlers will likely be subsidized for quite a while. So, who gets the subsidy?

Imagine the US Congress or the United Nations debating the selection of the "First Hundred" from KSR's Red Mars/Green Mars/Blue Mars.

What a donnybrook that would be.

clark · 2004-05-26 14:45:55

And if there is a religious bent on the whole colonization issue?

Quite harry.

Alt2War · 2004-05-26 15:29:37

Homosexuals are still quite capable of reproduction, fyi.

clark · 2004-05-26 15:56:57

I did say, natural. But go ahead, try and reproduce with someone of the same sex without the aid of science. See how far you get.

Josh Cryer · 2004-05-26 16:25:42

Were American settlers subsidized?

Also, Alt does have a point, homosexuals can quite reproduce; the question of 'necessity' becomes more one of ideology (ie, those filthy homosexuals), because if homosexuals are ever proposed the idea that they are worthless since they're not making babies, all they would have to do is... team up and make babies.

Hopefully by the time congress gets involved, we'll be over our petty differences, and it won't even be an issue.

Bill White · 2004-05-26 16:30:48

Were American settlers subsidized?

The "break the ice" voyages certainly were.

Columbus, Drake, Magellan.

Until those happen, no Mayflowers. But then, I agree, national governments have little incentive to fund settlement. But "peoples" do.

Question. Is China merely a nation or are they also "a people" and "a culture" and "a civilization"?

clark · 2004-05-26 17:30:10

American settlers?

Yes, almost all of them. Colonization was a commerical venture.

As for homosexuals teaming up... well, yeah, they have all the right equipment... but the idea of sex with the opposite gender, is well, a rather disgusting proposition to them.

You hetero sexual men, how fast would you jump to go have sex with someone of your own gender? Most respond to the idea with some level of revulsion- the same is true for homosexuals.

You likes what you likes, and I personally have no problem with that. More power to ya. But the question remains, if the goal is to colonize Mars, is it really rationale to spend the time and resources to send people who can't help with this goal?

RobS · 2004-05-26 18:05:35

The other factor to consider is the cost of children. They require heavily radiation shielded stuctures, a potentially wide range of medical treatments--what about Downs Syndrome kids--teachers, and they take a lot of time to raise (I know, I have two, and nthey drive me crazy sometimes). The early people going to Mars will be highly trained. They are likely to be older; 30s and 40s rather than 20s. They are more likely to have children with birth defects if they have children at all. Children cannot contribute to Mars for about twenty years, so they drain off a lot of resources from a small settlement.

So my guess is that the earliest settlement will have few children. People will go to Mars based on what they can contribute to the place in terms of science and engineering, so the selection won't favor young, heterosexual couples. Many will stay a few years, maybe a decade, then head back to Earth, having imparted a crucial skill (replacing rocket engines, cancer surgery) to someone staying.

But as the place expands, there will be an effort to attract more young people. There are ways you do that without discriminating; you require the majority of the people on a flight to sign contracts for periods of time longer that 26 months (preferably 52 months minimum, 78 months or longer preferred); you give higher salaries for the people staying longer; and you lower the starting salary of arrivals. You won't actually need to cut starting salaries, you just nibble away at the benefit packages. The first people who arrive will be living in small rooms and eating in a common kitchen, rotating the cooking and cleaning duties. They won't have any way to spend money locally; it'll all go in a terrestrial bank account. But as the settlement expands, there will be contract workers for private companies, so you switch the cafeteria over to a paying system without raising wages. And you establish the possibility of purchasing small condos, rather than providing free housing. Then you institute an income or property tax to cover the cost of day care and the elementary school. Then you introduce universal health insurance and raise the income tax rate. . . the overall result will be, many of the people arriving will be right out of grad school with their Master's degrees or out of university with their Bachelors, or out of high school with a few years experience running construction equipment on the moon, and they'll start out with wages that barely cover cafeteria, condo fees, and the beer they buy every satursol night when the cafeteria becomes a single's lounge. And they settle down, marry, and have kids, unless they snag a place on a mission to the asteroid belt or to Jupiter. But meanwhile, the 50 year old guy whose kids have grown up to adulthood on Earth and who has published three books about lunar geology and wants to spend six years on Mars will still be more than welcome; he might even be able to convince the immigrantion people to let his daughter right out of college come as well.

The other thing that will probably emerge is a seniority system whereby the longer you stay, the better your job and the higher your salary. This will be establish to retain workers; it's cheaper to raise wages than import a replacement. People will start out economically on the bottom, but the promise of advancement will be great as long as the population expands reasonably quickly through immigration, because that means the people alrady there can constantly be promoted as organizations get bigger.

Of course, all of this assumes Mars isn't desperately Spartan in its living conditions. I suspect it won't be, because right now Earth doesn't have the moral will to send people into a lifestyle that is wretched and extremely dangerous. Or perhaps I should put it this way: the Mars that is established should put its existing resources into being as family friendly as possible. Malls and consumer goods will be limited; ice cream flavors will be few and the ice cream will be made from soy products when there is any at all; chocolate bars will either be of local carob and be expensive or will be imported Godiva Chocolate at $500 per bar. Once a Barbie doll has been imported, it will be sold as a used doll again and again and again. The local store will be filled with used items; people returning to Earth can sell their personal possessions at a flea market before departure and make lots of money. The economic surplus of the place needs to go into a good hospital, basic and decent food, good communications (everyone will want to be able to watch their favorite tv show, and it is a good investment in morale to let them do so), and education. If you want to sell the place to terrestrial tax payers, the more the place looks middle class but in a sacrificial way, the better.

-- RobS

Alt2War · 2004-06-01 20:52:21

American settlers?
Yes, almost all of them. Colonization was a commerical venture.
As for homosexuals teaming up... well, yeah, they have all the right equipment... but the idea of sex with the opposite gender, is well, a rather disgusting proposition to them.
You hetero sexual men, how fast would you jump to go have sex with someone of your own gender? Most respond to the idea with some level of revulsion- the same is true for homosexuals.
You likes what you likes, and I personally have no problem with that. More power to ya. But the question remains, if the goal is to colonize Mars, is it really rationale to spend the time and resources to send people who can't help with this goal?

There are a number of ways to reproduce other than intercourse.

Artificial insemination, invitro insemination, a hot tub party, etc.

None of which happen to be cutting edge technology.

There are more complex methods in the works, just reciently a female/female reproduction was accomplished with rats. (what will happen when women realize they don't need us anymore?)

And, if it is of dire necessity, the old fashioned method could be applied. It is not the only way, though.

Alt2War · 2004-06-01 20:55:28

The other factor to consider is the cost of children. They require heavily radiation shielded stuctures, a potentially wide range of medical treatments--what about Downs Syndrome kids--teachers, and they take a lot of time to raise (I know, I have two, and nthey drive me crazy sometimes). The early people going to Mars will be highly trained. They are likely to be older; 30s and 40s rather than 20s. They are more likely to have children with birth defects if they have children at all. Children cannot contribute to Mars for about twenty years, so they drain off a lot of resources from a small settlement.
-- RobS

Without children, you don't have a colony.

Trebuchet · 2004-06-01 21:46:23

Mars needs women, and at least for a century or two, it will need children. My own opinion on this would be to try to do better than past colonization efforts as far as gender ratios, then let the chips fall where they will as far as reproduction. Birth control on Mars is going to be dicey (send the pills from Earth? Spare precious plastic production for condoms?) to begin with, and abortion would be subjected to an incredibly powerful Roe effect within the first few generations. People settling new frontiers tend to have more children than the stay-at-homes anyways, and I don't expect that to change.

Alt2War · 2004-06-01 22:13:30

30 women and one man, and you have a chance of continuing a population of humans.

30 men and one woman, and you have no chance of continuing a population.

point being, Mars Needs Women.

Bill White · 2004-06-01 22:18:52

The other factor to consider is the cost of children. They require heavily radiation shielded stuctures, a potentially wide range of medical treatments--what about Downs Syndrome kids--teachers, and they take a lot of time to raise (I know, I have two, and nthey drive me crazy sometimes). The early people going to Mars will be highly trained. They are likely to be older; 30s and 40s rather than 20s. They are more likely to have children with birth defects if they have children at all. Children cannot contribute to Mars for about twenty years, so they drain off a lot of resources from a small settlement.
-- RobS
Without children, you don't have a colony.

Exactly.

No colony? Send robots.

clark · 2004-06-02 09:41:32

send robot women.

Aetius · 2004-06-03 17:48:57

Interesting idea.

The corporation which eventually creates a life-like, anatomically correct, robotic female simulator will make Microsoft's profits look like chump change.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-04-28 14:13:28

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#27 2004-05-17 19:46:18

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#28 2004-05-18 11:44:58

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#29 2004-05-18 11:58:25

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#30 2004-05-18 16:50:14

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#31 2004-05-19 20:02:12

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#32 2004-05-24 17:05:48

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#33 2004-05-25 15:53:27

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#34 2004-05-25 17:32:22

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#35 2004-05-26 12:33:36

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#36 2004-05-26 14:19:14

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#37 2004-05-26 14:45:55

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#38 2004-05-26 15:29:37

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#39 2004-05-26 15:56:57

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#40 2004-05-26 16:25:42

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#41 2004-05-26 16:30:48

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#42 2004-05-26 17:30:10

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#43 2004-05-26 18:05:35

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#44 2004-06-01 20:52:21

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#45 2004-06-01 20:55:28

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#46 2004-06-01 21:46:23

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#47 2004-06-01 22:13:30

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#48 2004-06-01 22:18:52

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#49 2004-06-02 09:41:32

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

#50 2004-06-03 17:48:57

Re: Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual

Board footer