Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

Byron · 2002-11-05 07:00:16

Here's a "situation ethics" to ponder...

It seems that everytime that I open up the newspaper or listen to the local news I hear about child abuse, sexual abuse of children, even murder of the young by their own parents. It has been a long-accepted principle of Western society that the right to have children is never to be abridged except in the most extreme of circumstances..and indeed, so-called 'welfare' programs are specifically geared towards single women having children, despite overwelming evidence that single, poor mothers are often the poorest candidates for having children.

In light of Clark's 'scenario' of whether to allow children or not in an enclosed setting, I've come to think about whether the natural 'right' to have children should indeed have limitations in order to protect the rights of children...the last remaining segment of society who still have no rights as citizens. Children cannot vote, they cannot live independently from others (their parents/guardians), and they are wholly dependent on adults to provide for nearly every aspect of their lives, ranging from the basics of food/clothing to their education and well-being, not to mention being taught how to live in a civil society.

It is common knowledge that some parents are better than others, and there are some parents out there who simply cannot do what is required to properly raise a child to adulthood, which of course, leads to such problems as juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, emotional problems in adulthood, etc.

I have actually proposed, partially in jest, to some of my friends the idea of requiring a 'license' in order to have children...which would mandate such things that two parents be living in a household, that they have some basic knowledge of what it takes to raise a child properly, not be felons/drug abusers, not have any type of mental instability that could place a child at risk, etc. The prospective parents would have to take a series of child-rearing classes before and during pregnancy, and take follow-up classes as their children grow up to ensure the child's well-being and to keep ALL children on an equal basis in regards to learning, having the opportunity to reach their highest possible potential, etc.

Surprisingly, many of the people I have told this to actually think that child licenses would be an excellent idea, with only a few calling me a 'communist' or worse...lol

But in all seriousnesses, especially if we're talking about having families in an tightly-knit, enclosed society as such you would have on Mars and whatnot, might this idea be something that should be taken seriously? I was fortunate to have a happy, productive childhood (giving due credit to my dear parents, of course!)...but I feel a great deal of sadness when I hear about all the children out there who did not have the same opportunities as I had as child due to poor parenting...and there's absolutely nothing that the hapless child can do about his/her parents...

What do you guys think? Clark, I am especially interested in what you have to say about this...you've asked us to respond to your questions..now it's your turn..

B

AltToWar · 2002-11-05 07:47:02

Any system that creates a 'criteria' by which parents must follow to be given the right to bear children will by human nature favor those with the power of defining that criteria.

This will lead to:

a: Unnatural Selection

If you change the natual process of mate selection, you will change the natural selection of the next generation.

For instance for whatever biological reason Judy is very hot for Jim, but knows that if she chooses Robert as a mating partner she is more likely to be approved for offspring.

There are reasons Judy's body is telling her that Jim is a proper mate for her, reasons we cannot understand. Nature has taken millions of years to refine our pharamones and mating biology. We don' know enough about it yet to claim to know better than nature.

b: Shallow Gene Pools

Beacause a certian class of people; be it race, religion, political, intelligence, or phisical fitness based; will be favored, the gene pool of those types will quickly shallow up, producing within 2-3 generations genetic defects and suceptability to disease that will worsen over time.

c: Human Dignity

The right to bear children is integral to human dignity. To involuntarily bar certian individuals from reproduction is to strip them of that portion of their dignity.

Mother Nature has provided for a breeding program for every species, for every situation.

I say as long as every child is wanted, as long as every child has an adult or two willing to provide for them, then by all means let them have that child

Colonization does NOT mean a buch of old geizers living out their old age on mars. Colonization is ALL ABOUT CHILDREN.

AltToWar · 2002-11-05 09:15:17

I believe an important difference between our view begins with that I do not believe there is an inherent right to have children.
I'll challenge anyone to establish how we have a right to reproduction.

I have a pee-pee, therefore mother nature gave me the ability to have a child, as long as i find a compatable pee-pee to make one with.

I challenge anyone to find ANY governmenmtal institution that has enough moral and juicial integrity to fairly decide who can and cannot breed.

To place Governmental restriction on breeding is to commercialize breeding rights. People will vote for the politician that will bring the most breeding rights to their district. Those with money and influence will bribe and coerce those who make decisions do favor their breeding petitions.

You WILL have established a Breeding and Non-Breeding social classes.

I dont know if any of you have children, but every 2 years _Doctors_ change their position on several Key issues in child raising. Make your child sleep on it's back, make your child sleep on it's belly. Breast feeding is best, Formula is best. It goes on and on.

If doctors do not know what is best for a child any given year, how can we expect some paper pusher to know?

What if some poor information is given to the parents, and because of that there is an epidemic?

If we are talking about an enclosed environment like mars- a yearly cap on the number of children that can be born should be created (i don't believe this is neccessary in open environments). Sorry, but think of a fish tank- if you let the fish breed willy nilly, they die off. People on mars are nothing more than fish in a bowl... do you want ick?

You forget that each of these fish have a gestation period of 9 months followed by a 16-20 year childhood.

Lets suppose that 100 25yr olds colonize mars on the year 2050. They spend 1 Decade expanding and growing their habitats.

As the work slows down and life starts to kick in, Each Martian family has 2 kids. You just doubled the population, but:

A: You had a decade to prepare
B: You have at least a decade before your child will require the full resources of an adult.

Now 20 years later. Lets say the origional 100 is alive at 55, along with thier 100 children at age 20. Lets say that that second generation once again has 2 children per family, another 100 people.

We did not double our population, but just added 50% more. No small task, but you had 20 years to prerpare.

20 more years. Another full generation. The origional settlers being all 75 yrs old start dieing off.
You have 100 births, but you also have 100 deaths.

In three generations you have just reached a 0% population groth.

and you know what? this is a PROBLEM.

Why? because we are Colonizing a planet, not putting up a base camp, or starting a club, but we are on mars to bring human life to the planet. to expand and grow.

Now these are numbers just to prove a point that 2 children per family will eventually lead to a 0% or less population growth level.

Due to radiation and other such dangers, odds are that the life expectancy will be lower for the first few generations. Odds are that a good portion will be infertile or opt out of reproduction.

This provides PLEANTY of room for others breed all they want.

Not only is population control not a problem, lack of offspring could SERIOUSLY jepordize any attempt of colonization 3 generations down the road.

Consider a second option. Each family is only allowed to produce 1 child.

Assuming that each individual starts dieing at about the time that their great grand child is born, At your 4th generation you have fewer people on Mars than origionally came in the first place.

AltToWar · 2002-11-05 16:52:33

Who says you have a right to breed in the first place?

Who says you have the right to even breathe?

AltToWar · 2002-11-05 17:15:53

You can harp on this all you want- you choose the mathmatics that suit your argument- now lets talk some common sense. You point to two kids- well, I point to four kids. What happens to your grand little world when each couple has 4 children? What happens at 6? 8? 10? Your little world burns in flames choking on its own waste.
The fact of the matter is that if you allow unrestricted breeding, then any number of children each individual chooses to have is acceptable- I can have 83 if I want. That measn everyone can have 83. What happens to an enclosed society where population numbers are not controlled? They become like fish and develop ick.

Do you have any facts to back this statement up?

You really should consider the actual facts before you make off the hip assumptions.

If your goal is to have a GROWING colony of people on mars, each family will have to have at LEAST 3 children per family just to keep the martian population growth out of the 0% growth.

There will be natural birth inhibiting circumstances to prevent an overabundance of children. These inhibitors THREATEN the existance of the colony.

I challenge you to actually work out the numbers with any child birth limit you would like to propose and do the math out 5 generations. See what numbers you turn up.

If you do, I believe you will see that if we plan to have a growing human colony on mars we should be more worried on how to get people to have MORE children, not less.

'common sense' wont beat plain math in this case.

You pick two children with the idea that everyone will have two children and hold off there- that is a silently accepted birth max- you don't expect to many people to have more than that- however, you take a RISJ by assuming such a thing. How can you justify that kind of risj in a multibillion dollar enclosed environment where the effects of each individual can directly affect the lives of everyone else?

If everyone only had 2 children, we would have a 0% population growth by the 3rd or 4th generation. If we want the colony to grow people will need to have more.

Due to the harh environment and heavy radiation, there is a good chance that many will not be able to have children. In addition there will be some who will choose not to have children. Some will die off before they ever get te chance to have children.

If we are on mars to colonize, by defininition we are on mars to breed. We are on mars to create and establish human life there. If we have less humans on mars in 80 years then when we first set foot there, what exactly have we accomplished? Some social experiment in draconian, fruitless, dehumanizing birth control for it's own sake?

Pat Galea · 2002-11-05 17:27:34

The fact of the matter is that if you allow unrestricted breeding, then any number of children each individual chooses to have is acceptable- I can have 83 if I want. That measn everyone can have 83. What happens to an enclosed society where population numbers are not controlled? They become like fish and develop ick.

And if you allow people to choose their own occupation, then any occupation an individual chooses is acceptable - I can be an insurance salesman if I want. That means everyone can be an insurance salesman. What happens to a society where occupations are not controlled? They drive flash cars, wear sharp suits, no-one grows food and they all starve.

Oh, and they develop ick.

Phobos · 2002-11-05 18:58:53

Hey Pat haven't seen you in awhile! The thing that bothers me with these draconian laws on childbirth is how they'll be enforced. What are we going to do if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't have some certificate stamped by the benevolent state that allows her to have the child? Are they basically going tie her up, spread her legs and do things to her body that she wouldn't approve of? I guess they could just shove a cone down her throat and force her to swallow a pill or force an IV needle into her arms if the pregnancy isn't far along. Sounds like rape to me. Yeah can't wait to live in that kind of society. Anyways I understand the sarcasm in your message. Why allow people to do anything of their own volition when the rights and reasoning of the "state" are superior to those of the individual? I get the feeling some Orwellian notion of freedom is going to sprout here, that freedom only exists when there is no freedom!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-05 19:09:21

I remember the moment they announced on T.V. that Earth's population had reached 3 billion. They went on to predict it would double in about 30-35 years.
I was 14 years old at the time, had not long been transplanted from the wide open spaces of Australia to the overcrowded suburbs of London, and was horrified at the contrast. In Australia there was no crowding and we used to drive 20 miles (about 30 minutes) to pristine surf beaches most weekends. We parked just behind the huge sand hills, walked over them, and took our pick of which spot to spread out the towels.
In England there were people everywhere! Everywhere you went, it seemed that half the world went with you. The roads were jammed with traffic, the buses were full, you had to wait in line for everything! The temptation on weekends and holidays to drive to the coast was soon suppressed - the 50 mile drive would take at least 2 hours, and you had to park about 2 miles from the beach, because of the crowding, and walk the rest of the way. The beach itself was packed with people. And it was wise to leave early because of the traffic snarl-ups getting back into London.

The thought of the world's population growing to 6 billion filled me with horror. (You know how intense teenagers can get?! )
I became a crusader for small families. No couple should have more than 2 children, no matter what!
What seemed to me like nothing but the most enlightened common sense, was met with hostility. People seemed oblivious to the horrors of overpopulation, which, in London, were all around them. They objected to anyone suggesting a limit to their breeding, as though it were a personal affront or a threat to their freedom.
But where is the freedom in a world choked with human beings, standing on each other, falling over each other, polluting each other's environment?! I simply couldn't understand why everyone didn't see it as clearly as I did!

I imagined a future of draconian legislation to curb the uncontrollable breeding urges of my fellow human beings.
I decided that some form of contraceptive would have to be administered to the populace in the food or water supply, making conception impossible. Couples (nobody thought much about single parent families back then) could apply for a licence to obtain an antidote to the all-pervasive contraceptive substance, and have a child. Each couple would only be allowed two such licences during their life together.

You can see how much my introduction to overcrowding influenced my thinking, can't you?!!

But time and experience are great teachers. My obsession with population control has proven unnecessary in recent times, as growing prosperity and education have radically blunted population growth rates in most of the developed world.
Projections of population figures for the mid to late 21st century have been adjusted downwards from the scary figures bandied about only 20 years ago. Many 1st world countries, with the U.S.A. a prominent exception, are now discussing the ramifications of population decline! And they have started campaigns to encourage an increased birth rate.

Anyhow, the point of all this is just to say I don't think we need to worry much about controlling population in a growing Martian colony.
I believe there is a natural tendency for people to adjust their breeding to suit the circumstances. There's probably an unconscious aspect to this, as well as the factor of conscious choice. We think we're choosing what we want, but what we want is influenced by deeper instincts which are in tune with the environment and its effect on our mood.
Of course there will be chaotic fluctuations away from the ideal population trend and these may be temporarily problematic. (I believe the recent surge in Earth's population is such a chaotic event. A blip on the graph, if you like, which will settle down by the end of this century.)
But I think the overall picture on Mars will be fine. People aren't quite as stupid as they seem!

By the way, what the hell is "ick"?!! :0

Palomar · 2002-11-05 20:09:19

Projections of population figures for the mid to late 21st century have been adjusted downwards from the scary figures bandied about only 20 years ago. Many 1st world countries, with the U.S.A. a prominent exception, are now discussing the ramifications of population decline! And they have started campaigns to encourage an increased birth rate.
By the way, what the hell is "ick"?!!

*Yeah. What the hell is "ick"? I want to know, too.

Actually, I've heard in the past few years that the population of the USA will start to *decline* within the next 20 years, while that of some other nations [can't recall which] will increase. The last I heard, Italy is having a heck of a time with a very low birth rate; apparently women over there are delaying becoming mothers until very late...if at all.

I have seen a tremendous jump in the population around me. Compared to when I was a child, there are *lots* of people around me now. Of course, some of that perception has to do with a location change akin to Shaun's; Iowa weather is crappy, damp, and cold most of the time, so people don't get out as often, whereas in sunny and moderate New Mexico there are ALWAYS people on the go, go, go [except, perhaps, during the 2-3 sandstorms we get per year].

I don't want to get off track, but I know what Shaun's getting at: I, too, have had a tendency to worry too much. But since I've been doing alot of historical reading, I realize that many anticipated troubles never come to fruition, or that matters straighten themselves out somehow. An example would be my fellow US citizens often grumbling about taxes, corrupt politicians, etc. Heck, crack open a history book and read about the governments of England and France in the 1700s! Positions were hereditary, or purchased by wealthy people, and the taxes hardly ever went where they were SUPPOSED to go; the corruption in those governments were staggering...at least here in the US we can vote the bums out, or kick their butts out of office. And yet Europe survived all this corruption, greed, famines, etc., etc., and its birth rate actually INCREASED and infant mortality rates DROPPED, toward the middle of the century and onwards.

History is a good teacher, and studying it has helped me get matters into better perspective -and- to stop worrying so much.

--Cindy [Former Champion Worry Wart]

AltToWar · 2002-11-05 20:13:22

time 40: Here's some numbers for you:

[code:1]

1 child per couple average:
time 0:

Bill White · 2002-11-05 22:10:48

I believe an important difference between our view begins with that I do not believe there is an inherent right to have children.

Perhaps. I certainly cannot craft a coherent argument proving clark wrong on this point and so I will not attempt to do so. However, lets try the converse. Craft an argument that Person A or Group A has an inherent right to tell Person B or Group B that they cannot have children.

I believe a curious irony and potential for contradiction lurks in the over-population context. Anyone who asserts an inherent right to reproduce may be arguing, in reality, for the denial of the right to reproduce to another. While I am hesitant to proclaim my absolute and abstract moral right to have children, I have little doubt I would fight like hell if someone else asserted that I had no such right, mostly because such other person(s) may well be lying to me for their own personal advantage.

Does anyone know if the top party leaders in China are bound by the one child policy or subject to the coerced abortions imposed on ordinary Chinese?

Very touchy stuff. Robert D. Kaplan, his book, The Coming Anarchy - I believe - quotes a Orthodox Serb on why they were so eager to kill Muslim Bosnians. It went along the lines of ". . .allow even one Muslim family to settle and raise children and before you know it there will be an entire village. . ."

Robert D. Kaplan is controversial and I do not support everything he writes, but I believe he cannot be disregarded as a legitimate voice on demographic issues. Amazon.com writes:

"The Coming Anarchy" is Kaplan at his most controversial. He argues that democracy is dangerous, that universal peace is a criminal illusion, that the random violence we fear (such as Littleton) is emerging as a lasting strategic threat. "We are entering a bifurcated world, " Kaplan writes. "Part of the globe is inhabited by Hegel and Fukuyama's Last Man, healthy, well fed, and pampered by technology. The other, larger, part is inhabited by Hobbes' First Man, condemned to a life that is 'poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'" In a devastating condemnation of democracy in the developing world, he writes: "Democracies do not always make societies more civil -- but they do always mercilessly expose the health of the societies in which they operate...My point, hard as it may be for an American to accept, is that Russia may be failing in part because it is a democracy and China may be succeeding in part because it is not."

I am NOT comfortable with this yet I cannot dismiss Kaplan out of hand.

Byron · 2002-11-06 07:11:58

Wow...so many responses in such a short time! Thanks everyone for putting your thoughts to paper, or rather the keyboard..lol. I threw out my original 'proposal' not because I am truly serious about supporting limitations on having children, etc...but mainly because I wanted to hear some debate on this critical issue...which helps me understand things in a broader context, which is why I frequent this board in the first place.

Shaun:

Anyhow, the point of all this is just to say I don't think we need to worry much about controlling population in a growing Martian colony.
I believe there is a natural tendency for people to adjust their breeding to suit the circumstances. There's probably an unconscious aspect to this, as well as the factor of conscious choice. We think we're choosing what we want, but what we want is influenced by deeper instincts which are in tune with the environment and its effect on our mood.
Of course there will be chaotic fluctuations away from the ideal population trend and these may be temporarily problematic. (I believe the recent surge in Earth's population is such a chaotic event. A blip on the graph, if you like, which will settle down by the end of this century.)
But I think the overall picture on Mars will be fine. People aren't quite as stupid as they seem!

I would have to agree...in light of all the news about the 'leveling off' of population levels in this new century...there does seem to be some sort of 'natural inhibitor' in people's propensity to have children - mature, advanced societies tend not to have many children, while developing ones do. As for the U.S., the birthrate is exactly at replacement level, which is 2.1, but the population continues to grow due to immigration...which is what I think will happen on Mars. I just don't see the average family on Mars having 3, 4, or 5 kids...as busy as those people will be, two children per family will probably be the norm, with many couples electing to opt out due to environmental concerns, etc. So the only way for a Martian colony will be able to grow over the long-term is through continuing immigration from Earth. And believe me, there will never be a shortage of frontier-seekers who wish to come to Mars. If anything has to be controlled number-wise, it will be the number of immigrants coming in from Earth, much as is done here in the U.S.

But when it comes to having children on Mars, or anywhere for that matter...I think it's extremely important to realize what kind of responsibility each new parent faces...how they raise that child will affect the world for many decades to come - and believe me, it's far, far better to raise a happy, well-rounded child than to raise an angry malcontent. HOWEVER...I also realize that how children turn out is not always within the parent's control - they can only do so much, after all. The thing I'm touchy about is the simple fact that children, by their very nature, do not have rights as free citizens, and therefore are wholly dependent on their parents, as well as the State to provide for their well-being...and as a society, I think we're obligated to ensure that every child is brought up in the best way possible, and have equal opportunities with respect to every other child. As great as this country is, I feel that the U.S. has a long way to go when it comes to our children...

On Mars, this will be even more important than here on Earth...such things as 'casual' acts of kiddie vandalism on Mars could mean death for many people, for example...and there will be little room for abusive people, etc. So some sort of consensus will be needed to ensure that any couple that *chooses* to have children are truly up to the task...this is the sort of thing that will have to be a community-wide effort. As they say, it takes a whole village to raise a child...and nowhere will this be more true or more relevant than on Mars.

In reference to Bill's comments about democracy...here's a saying I read a while back...

"Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep sitting around a campfire, having a vote to decide what to have for dinner..."

'Enuff said for now...again, thanks everyone for posting your thoughts...

B

Byron · 2002-11-06 10:10:16

First of all, clark, let me say that I applaud your efforts to state your concerns about children in enclosed environments...whether anyone agrees with you or not is not really that important - having the opportunity to present so-called 'contrarian' viewpoints is.

However...as much as I understand your concerns about the carrying compacity of an enclosed environment on Mars, you seen to greatly overstate the risk of malthusian meltdown.

Let me explain, please: Let's say at some point in the future a group of 500 people are able to establish a permanent settlement on Mars...and they are able to do this due to the technologies, funding, etc. available to them at that time. Assuming that this colonization process does get underway...it is highly doubtful that they will build a bubble that is only designed to hold the original 500 people...the margin of safty would be way too thin. In such a dangerous environment as Mars, they would likely strive to build a habitat that is capable of supporting at least twice the orginal number of people...this includes living space, air and water production, as well as surplus food production. This way, if something goes wrong, there is a cushion of safety, i.e. they are not living on the 'razor's edge' all the time.

In this scenario...I don't think people will begin having children right away...a 5 or 10-year moritorium on children may be appropiate while things are getting started...after all, the orginal colonists will have to agree to any rules and regulations prior to going, in order to ensure the viability of the new community as a whole.

HOWEVER...seeing how strong the desire to have children is in people, sooner or later, planning for children will be par for the course. So...the planners, if they had any sense about them, would plan for the expansion of the settlement over time to compensate for population growth, not to mention the additional resources that new immigrants will bring with them, should they choose to accept them. (which would be a smart thing to do...just look at what immigration has done for the U.S.)

In other words, even from the get-go, the original settlement would be in a constant state of expansion...although they started out with excess capacity...they will just have to maintain that excess capacity in order to protect the residents against mishaps, etc. And the more people there are, the greater the collective resources will be, which will increase the margin of safety even further..and when there are enough people on Mars...and they are all getting tired of having to live inside all the time...can anyone say "terraforming"?

Another way of looking at this..if it is determined that having constant expansion and excess capacity is too expensive, out of reach of the resources of the original colonists, etc...then it's not time to go yet. They'll just have to wait until technology increases and costs fall to lower levels...otherwise they would be enbarking on a potentially risky and foolish venture.

As long as INTELLIGENT PLANNING is carried out on a Martian settlement...there's no real reason to fear a malthusian meltdown..yes, there will be plenty of things to worry about...but not that.

Another thing, clark...there is a physical limit to how many children one can have. The average human female can produce one baby every two years..so if they started having babies at the age of 16, and went to age 46...30 years of having babies, that would be a max of 15 or so kids per woman, although the world record is like 69 kids, I think - but that's an extreme example. In all reality, however, the Martain frontier-seekers are going to be a group of highly intelligent, forward-looking people,and having lots of kids is just not going to be high on their priority lists. I just don't see how that is not a realistic way of looking at this...

B

Bill White · 2002-11-06 11:34:24

clark is 100% right - of course - too many babies and everyone dies. So, how does a group legitimately decide who can have babies, and who cannot?

clark is also 100% correct that Dome A or Mars bubble #1 will be darn expensive to construct and life will be astonishingly precarious. To have babies while living in Dome A or Mars Bubble #1 would be pretty damn irresponsible.

Not to mention all the unknowns about fetal development in .38 gee.

Where I disagree with clark and tend to agree with Byron concerns the ability of Dome A or Bubble #1 to construct Dome B or Mars Bubble #2 (or add on a major addition) using primarily native Martian materials, importing perhaps the latest computer chips (lightweight and thus more easily shipped from Terra) and biological agents (soils and nutrients to jump start expanded hydroponics and Mars soil beds) and perhaps small amounts of ultra high tech building materials..

Once Mars Bubble #1 exists - and they possess a working bulldozer and crane and a working Mars brick making machine and a working aerogel making machine (University of Wisconsin already has an aerogel making machine the size of an average refrigerator) and rapid prototype machines (these can work either with plastics or epoxies or metal powders to fashion any part the design of which has been stored digitally)

- plus -

the ability to extract plant nutrients from regolith and by recycling the human waste stream and plant waste (Lets not "reprise soil vs hydroponics" here)

- plus -

the ability to manufacture locally solar power collection devices

Well, how hard will Mars Bubble #2 really be? And, once #2 is built (and skills honed) #3 and #4 will be even easier. And #5 - 8 even easier still.

Zubrin discusses automated brick makers and google reveals a wealth of data on rapid prototype machines and aerogels and photocatalysts. All still too expensive for Earth application, as of now, but much cheaper than shipping stuff from Terra & entirely feasible using 1990s technology.

Bill White · 2002-11-06 11:42:05

Hillary Clinton once wrote a book "It Takes A Village to Raise a Child"

I have proposed a Mars Endowment Fund to accept donations and invest those donations to grow with interest to be given to the mother of the first child born on Mars who attains an agreed age. clark's arguments demonstrate that such a child will not be born until a sufficiently robust village has been constructed.

Thus, an endowment fund to be paid to the mother of such child (our Mars Eve?) will assure that a damn flags and footprints mission will not be awarded those funds.

Palomar · 2002-11-06 11:55:27

Another thing, clark...there is a physical limit to how many children one can have. The average human female can produce one baby every two years..so if they started having babies at the age of 16, and went to age 46...30 years of having babies, that would be a max of 15 or so kids per woman, although the world record is like 69 kids, I think - but that's an extreme example. In all reality, however, the Martain frontier-seekers are going to be a group of highly intelligent, forward-looking people,and having lots of kids is just not going to be high on their priority lists.

*Yes, speaking as a woman myself, I have to agree with Byron. Most, if not all, of the earliest female Marsian settlers will be highly educated, career-oriented people; scientists, technicians, etc. In my experience, most of these women are not overly eager to start popping kids out left and right, and many opt for starting a family no sooner than in their mid-30s; many of these types of women also are not, it seems to me, interested in having lots of children; generally two. Of course, this trend could change with time [who knows?], but I'd doubt it it.

--Cindy

turbo · 2002-11-06 12:30:02

If an underground network of trains, rocketsleds or electric tricycles connects the colonies, then could not a single team of specialists perform the "mechanic" needs ?

To attempt to stay on topic, I can just see the following scenario:

Male Settler: "Dear we can have up to four kids if we start now! Our family could be the biggest on a new planet, think of the fame!"

Female Settler: "I did not get a Master's degree, run myself ragged at Star City, and spend eighteen months in a closet with one shower per week, to be barefoot and pregnant."

Male Settler: "But we NEED children to be the new technicians!"

Female Settler: "We NEED more robots to prospect for water, go impregnate a rover!"

Somehow, I don't see the first females to Mars considering themselves to be breeding stock. Serious brains and abilities will be needed for the colonies to work, and competition to fill billets will be fierce. There may be several decades between first landings and first native Marsians, probably longer. The colonies should have time to be ready for children.

turbo

AltToWar · 2002-11-06 15:00:54

Question to all, must a group tolerate a behavior of an individual that places added risk and cost to the group, and the group is without recourse?

We all come to mars in a bunch of tuna cans.

If my neighbor had a child, i would not feel oppressed by a 6.5 lb droolmonkey. I do not feel that my neighbors have put me at risk. In fact, I know that for humans to have a permanant place on mars it means we must have children.

In fact, I would be happy for them.

I also realize it will be another 12 years before the little tike will need a full food ration, and 18 years before it needs it's own habitat. This is not a terrible burden placed on me or the community.

I for one love kids.

Your arguement taken to the extreme would lead to execution of the elderly and the handicapped because they place a burden on society.

I have proven with numbers that mars a mars colony is in danger of SHRINKING 3 generations down, not of overpopulation.

You speak as if the moment an individual child is born, a great burden is added to the community. You fail to realize though that this child wont consume the same amount of food as an adult for at least a decade, wont require as much space for quite some time, and as soon as it is in need of the resources of an adult, it can provide additional manpower to produce those results.

You, I, and the Queen of England have no *inherent* right to have children. It is not *obvious" right, it is an assumed right. Let's take China as an example. 1.2 billion people in a country slightly smaller than the USA. They have a one child law. Contrast this situation with the USA, slightly larger than China, with 270 million people. We have no child limits.

I dont know how you define a 'right'. I suppose it's based on your personal morals. Unfortunately morality is a subjective. So in your mind nobody has a right to breed, but that does not make such a statement true for anyone who does not happen to subscribe to your set of principles.

What is the difference between the two countries?
Why would it be prudent for the Chinese to limit the number of children each family have?

It's the math that makes us different. Here is where I believe you fail to grasp the reality of the population issue.

the united states has a higher population growth rate than china. US: .9% China .88%

If China has a lower population growth rate then the US, then why are they leaving female infants out to die in the streets? Why does China

Beacuse a .9% growth for America is 2million people, and a .88% growth for China is 11 Million.

At the same rate over 10 years thats an increase of 25 million for the US and 123 million for China.

At the same rate over 100 years would produce a .4 billion increase for the US and a 2 Billion people for China.

So even though america has a higer population increase rate our problems are nowhere near theirs. Given that the same increase rates stay the same (and all signs point that they are falling falling) then by the time the US reaches 1 billion, china will have passed over 4 billion.

China's population problem is much more near term then the US because it currently has a MUCH higher current pouplulation. Even though chinas growth rate is smaller than the US's, by the nature of geometric mathamatics it's increase is 5 times the US.

Now lets say our mars colony is made up by mostly Americans, starts with 1000 people, and continues on at the same population growth rate that america currently holds (using 1995 numbers fyi)

In 100 Years mars population would only be 2400.

If we cannot double our capacity in 100 years we need to shut down the marijuana hydrophonics operation.

Lets say we went with double the current pop growth rate to 1.8% increase per year.

In 100 years only 6000 people on mars. Still a very managable poposition to create and expand capacity for this increase over en entire century.

I hope you see that restricting childbirth on mars is nonsense. We have no birthing laws in the US and have a .9% populaton increase. If we maintained the same growth rate on mars the population increase will be trivial for centuries. If we Double it, it is still well within the realm of managability.

Your argument that Mars will have a population problem similar to china is not based on fact. Apples to oranges.

People will live in enclosed bubbles.
These bubbles are not made by magic, nor do they suddenly appear based on wishes.

Not nessicarily true. nearly every proposal for martian coloniation had plans for brick and mortar underground habitats. Built on mars by martians.

Assumption not based on fact.

People are pointing to some instinctual limit to the number of children being born, I suggest these people have no place outside of earth. Our instincts will be largely useless on mars becuase Mars is so outside of terran evolutionary lessons as to be, well, another world of experience. I question the sanity in planning on "instinct" to maintain an equilibrium or prevent over-population in a FRAGILE man made enclosed environment.

We no longer live in trees, does that invalidate our natural insticts? I live on the top floor of a tall building, does that make my breeding instincts obselete? Do we suddenly change into a new species once we leave LEO? On mars I going to have to blow my nose every time I feel like I need to shit?

Assumption not based on fact.

People will be living in a vacum- hello, dosen't any of this register?! They can't walk down the road and jump into the next available habitat when this one is all filled up- it has to be built and planned for- well in advance.

Take Census, estimate average population growth, project it into 5 years, add a safty margin, build underground habitats and green houses to compensate.

How difficult is that?

So here is something to consider for the math majors:
If mars is going to be colonized, it will receiev colonists- do we stop sendign colonists after the first or second batch? No.

America's .9% population growth includes it's very hefty immigration.

Id society bears the final responsibility, how is it wise to not allow society the means by which to manage that responsibility?

The people and their children ARE society.

Mars will not be disneyland. It is cold, harsh, and deadly. Humans living in such an environment will be at best, precarious. Water system breaks down? Dead. Greenhouse fails? Dead. Power outage? Dead. Cracked roof? Dead.
Too many people that strain the MECHANICAL MAN MADE systems and guess what. Dead.

Break the water pipes to New York City, people die. Stop electricty, food rots, people die. Destroy our bridges and highways, food stops pouring in, people die.

Reliance on technology will not be somthing new. Human population stressing the limits of the current technology is nothing new.

If you really think about it, If we had to abandon modern technology here on earth, a large portion of us would die. Thats the risk of modern life.

Here on earth we take measures to minimize that risk. I would imagine we could do the same on mars.

Imagine a colony of 10,000 people, with unfettered rights to breed as often as they wish- OR three kids per couple, in the firet few years they would have 25,000 people. You then end up with 47500 in 20 years, 81250 in 40 years, 121875 is 60 years, and 18281in 80 years, and almpst 275,000 in 100 years.

Unless you plan to begin your origional colony with 10,000 20 year olds, your numbers are flawed.

Your first jump takes an increase of 22% per year increase, after which it holds steady at 3%. Thats because your first jump does not take into the account previous generations dieing.

with a population increase of 3% a year, after 80 years a population of 10,000 will become 110,000.

3% pop growth could be safely said to be a worst case scenerio, as 3% pop growth is the increase of your average 3rd world country these days.

That being the case, i dont think after 80 years it is impossible or improbable that we could create the habitat allowed for these numbers. 80 years is a human lifetime. A lot can be accomplished.

In fact, if we could pull off these numbers, i would call the first 80 years of the colony a Smashing Success.

AltToWar · 2002-11-06 16:10:33

If my neighbor had a child, i would not feel oppressed by a 6.5 lb droolmonkey. I do not feel that my neighbors have put me at risk. In fact, I know that for humans to have a permanant place on mars it means we must have children.
If your neighbor decides to have 15 kids, how would you feel?
If two of your neighbors decide to have 15 kids each, how would you feel?
If four of your neighbors decide to have 15 kids, how would you feel?
I understand that people will need to have children, I am not arguing that point. I am simply suggesting that it might be wise and prudent, given the rather dangerous conditions we would all be facing, to decide ahead of time how many babies we can allow to be born so we are adquetly prepared at all times. I am suggesting that we add an other level of planning and organizing to an already highly organized (by neccessity) endeavor such as space colonization.

You dont need laws to prevent women from bearin 15 children. You need birth control and educaton.

AltToWar · 2002-11-06 16:30:29

Indeed, so why don't we throw out all this rubbish about tring to Control people and enacting draconing, dehumanizing, demeaning laws, and instead focus on provoding education, dignity, and prosperity?

turbo · 2002-11-06 16:50:37

As 2002 draws to a close, I can see the argument over population control. But what we don't yet know is:

Are we as a species capable of sustaining a colonization effort on Mars?

Would the combined effects of both the voyage out and the lower gravity once landed adversely effect the ability of humans to reproduce?

Does Mars possess large caverns in either the mountains or under the surface suitable for construction of large colonies?
Roofing over existing canyons may provide the required space in incremental growth.

There is much to learn yet, and data from Translife is going to be very important.

turbo

Bill White · 2002-11-06 20:57:03

clark - how can anyone argue with this, unless they refuse to read carefully:

I understand that people will need to have children, I am not arguing that point. I am simply suggesting that it might be wise and prudent, given the rather dangerous conditions we would all be facing, to decide ahead of time how many babies we can allow to be born so we are adquetly prepared at all times. I am suggesting that we add an other level of planning and organizing to an already highly organized (by neccessity) endeavor such as space colonization.

"How many babies?" - - this may well be the most significant political decision made by any entity seeking to establish a permanent settlement on Mars.

How many babies are [too few] / [just right] / [too many] will depend on the goals and objectives of the settlement and the resources available to that settlement.

Babies are political. Pat Buchanan (Death of the West) argues demographics in a way I find highly distasteful. A classmate of mine has earned a PhD in political science and works at RAND. He co-authored a small book on Russia's declining population and the geo-political insecurities that will result when China starts looking at all that wide open Russian land in a few decades. His book makes me nervous, but I respect this fellow's good morals and he is right about the danger.

Some people could care less about ancestors and descendants. Others care deeply whether one is a Mayflower descendant or a Daughter of the American Revolution (DAR).

For those who do care about such things, early Mars settlements offer a unique bottleneck towards the future demographic make up of humanity's presence in the solar system. Descendants of Mars settlers, growing up among all the hardships clark points out may be better situated to settle places like the Main Belt or live in L5 cities, and Mars children will likely lead the way in settling the rest of space. A group obsessed with genealogy might jump at the chance to found new family trees that will stretch into every corner of the solar system.

And possession does becomes law, in history even if not in abstract theory. If growing numbers of Chinese emigrate to Siberia, the Moscow government has a big problem. If Dome A enacts and abides by a 2 child per couple limit and Dome B encourages 5 or 6 children and continually expands its Dome - let 100 years pass - then tell me whether the people and culture of Dome A or Dome B will be dominant.

To return to clark's point quoted above - to encourage 5 or 6 children per couple without extensive logistical support would be heinous and utterly irresponsible. But that will not happen. Any group that spends $100 - $200 billion to place 100 or 150 settlers on Mars will not spend that kind of money without substantial safeguards and surplus resources.

But suppose one cultural/religous group did send 1000 permanent settlers over a decade or two and no other group followed suit. Let 100 or 150 years pass and those folks' descendants will then "own" an entire planet!

Remember - -> $50 billion for MarsDirect is mostly for R&D. Follow on missions are much, much cheaper.

AltToWar · 2002-11-06 23:00:55

If Dome A enacts and abides by a 2 child per couple limit and Dome B encourages 5 or 6 children and continually expands its Dome - let 100 years pass - then tell me whether the people and culture of Dome A or Dome B will be dominant.

This is called democracy.

But suppose one cultural/religous group did send 1000 permanent settlers over a decade or two and no other group followed suit. Let 100 or 150 years pass and those folks' descendants will then "own" an entire planet!

This is an argument FOR breeding laws?

This is sounding like less of a safety issue and more of class/control issue.

Once again, I say, if you look at the math you will see that it will take a substantial amount of breeding on the part of the settlers to move over the 0% growth limit, given their natural challenges.

To enact any such law of breeding over any population is to put the state in control of natural, biological function. Any such laws will be rejected by the people. They will be voted down under any democracy. It will take some sort of athoritarian state to keep them in place.

Look at china, It currently has the most draconian population control measures on the planet. Even with those measures in place china is still expected to double it's population before it reaches 0% growth.

These laws are inneffectual. Human beings will resist them if it costs them their lives.

What measures will the state take to enforce these laws? Will we have a coat-hanger brigade of abortion doctors going house to house? Will you imprison mothers and create orphans?

To remove somones breeding rights from them is to take away their possiblity to enter the gene pool. This reduced tha amount of dignity afforded individuals.

Laws on breeding have historicly failed. Laws on breeding will require an athoritarian based government to keep in place. Laws on breeding will require EVIL measures to enforce. Laws on breeding reduce human dignity.

And worste of all, dispite your unfounded assumptions, laws on breeding will be totally unnessicary in a colonial situation.

Bill White · 2002-11-07 00:26:22

Hey! I support Mars settlers having babies pretty much as fast as resources allow. If there is enough food and air and water in reserve, go for it. I vehemently oppose "breeding laws" on Earth or Mars because of the potential for abuse by mis-guided guardians. Where did I say otherwise?

- yet -

I cannot pretend that over-population is not an issue nor can I pretend that having more babies on Mars than can be supported by hydroponics or the air scrubbers is not really, really stupid. Also, birth rates do have political consequences. They do whether we like it or not. Observing that fact and taking it into account in thinking about scenarios does not mean I favor "breeding laws."

As a practical matter - no nation or culture will allow another to have the only expanding settlement on Mars. If Christians started making babies on Mars at demographically significant rates the Muslims and the Hindus (for example) would find a way to re-allocate whatever money they need to found their own colony. And, even if a settlement officially disclaimed all rights of private property, once one culture had a sufficiently large number of members actually living on Mars, all deals would be cancelled and new Martian property laws enacted. I neither praise nor condemn this state of affairs - IMHO it is simply reality.

For the record, I am influenced in my thinking by Samuel P. Huntington The Clash of Civilizations which suggests that civilizational/cultural differences will drive world politics in this 21st century. Many people will care what culture/religion/civilization is adhered to by the first settlers to make babies on Mars. Wars have been fought over less.

Byron · 2002-11-07 07:31:22

I have an idea, clark...why not start a Martian colony with people who are either gay or have agreed to undergo sterilization prior to coming to Mars? Once or two kids might be born out of pure accident every now and then, but basically you would have a no-kid colony. The quota for new immigrants would be set to balance out the rate of people dying, etc...so the population never decreases nor increases...

There, problem solved.

B

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-11-05 07:00:16

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#2 2002-11-05 07:47:02

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#3 2002-11-05 09:15:17

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#4 2002-11-05 16:52:33

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#5 2002-11-05 17:15:53

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#6 2002-11-05 17:27:34

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#7 2002-11-05 18:58:53

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#8 2002-11-05 19:09:21

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#9 2002-11-05 20:09:19

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#10 2002-11-05 20:13:22

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#11 2002-11-05 22:10:48

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#12 2002-11-06 07:11:58

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#13 2002-11-06 10:10:16

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#14 2002-11-06 11:34:24

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#15 2002-11-06 11:42:05

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#16 2002-11-06 11:55:27

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#17 2002-11-06 12:30:02

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#18 2002-11-06 15:00:54

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#19 2002-11-06 16:10:33

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#20 2002-11-06 16:30:29

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#21 2002-11-06 16:50:37

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#22 2002-11-06 20:57:03

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#23 2002-11-06 23:00:55

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#24 2002-11-07 00:26:22

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#25 2002-11-07 07:31:22

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

Board footer