Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

Byron · 2002-11-07 08:29:50

Clark, I agree with you in principle in the things you are saying...the physical ramifications of the Martian environment certainly cannot be ignored in the face of unplanned growth.

My question is now this: In a presumably democratic Martian state, how would 'ethical' enforcement of birth restrictions and the like take place? Certainly not Phobos' and others' nightmarish visions of forced abortions and sterilizations...that kind of setting would bring about a whole lot quicker end to things than a malthusian meltdown in a Martain community. Perhaps the idea of putting a universal contraceptive in the water would work, much like the universal floridination we have now in the U.S. water supply, as that would prevent any pregnacies at all until an authorized 'antidote' is given.

The thing I think would work best, however, even in city-states of 50,000 to 100,000 people, is simply universal citizen participation in the growth planning process. Everyone is made aware of what impact having a child has on the community, and people simply know not to have, let's say more than 3 kids, and the one and two-child family would be the socially accepted norm. Believe it or not, a universal system of public beliefs and established policy can be even more effective than concrete law...if people are faced with public shame and humilation if they become a baby factory..than the tendency to become a baby machine is greatly reduced. People have a need to be liked by others, and if resource-mongerers are effectively shunned from society (with nowhere else to go, either), I just don't see that many people straying from the fold, so to speak...

Also, financial incentives is another potentially powerful tool...hand out a mega tax-break for having one child, a much smaller one for the second child, and after that, the parents start paying a tax penalty. If there's one thing that people like to hold on to, is their hard-earned cash...so this type of tax policy would surely have a huge impact on people's family planning practices...

Do you have any ideas of your own about population planning, clark? I'd love to hear 'em...

Just searching for a common ground here..as always..

B

AltToWar · 2002-11-07 12:51:30

You forget that every generation, a signifigant portion of the population dies.

Back home in tennessee they can put together a 5,000 room Motel up in 18months.

We manage animal population to prevent them from over-grazing to maintain a stable population that can be supported by their habitat- how the hell are we any different if we find ourselves on Mars?

Treating human beings like animals is a great way to rule over them!

This whole issue of "human dignity" blah blah blah is meaningless. Our crap smells just like everything else, and living in space is not disneyland. This is serious, and the consquences of unsound behavior is final and deadly.

Human Dignity has been historicly proven to be THE most effective birth control of all.

Strip a community of their dignity and you have a communiyt not worth having at all.

AltToWar · 2002-11-07 13:00:09

Oh, thats good, lets TAX mothers!

BABY TAX! That will go over real well!

Birth control in the water?

What happens when men drink from water filled with female hormone suppresants? What happens when a pregnant mother wants to drink?

Why not take this approach:

Look at the population growth % for the last 10 years, Project that growth rate forward to the next 10 years, and begin a construction program to meet those projections?

Bill White · 2002-11-07 13:21:25

clark writes:

Space on mars is a finite and neccessary resource- as such, it should be divided in an equitable manner for all people. You can have a right to have children, just like you have a right to free speech- but when and where is regulated by society- free speech dosen't meqan fire in a crowded theater- free breeding dosen't mean you get to pop out 40 kids when you first arive on Mars.

If Dome B wishes to allocate its time and energy to building additional space and increased life support so as to increase the birth rate, what is wrong with that? If Dome A is filled with gay scientists and they wish to devote all their resources to doing science, okay, whatever, I have no objection.

If Dome B says to Dome A - Hey! we have too many babies, give us some of your resources, Dome A should answer, "Why? or Hell No!" And if Dome A says to Dome B - "Stop having kids and use those resources for science" maybe the same reply is due.

I do agree that all settlers need to disuss this openly - in advance - to prevent misunderstandings concerning the objectives of the settlement. If a 10,000 person dome is divided in its opinion - and cannot negotiate a consensus policy - time to divide and form new domes.

Now Byron. . .

The thing I think would work best, however, even in city-states of 50,000 to 100,000 people, is simply universal citizen participation in the growth planning process. Everyone is made aware of what impact having a child has on the community, and people simply know not to have, let's say more than 3 kids, and the one and two-child family would be the socially accepted norm. Believe it or not, a universal system of public beliefs and established policy can be even more effective than concrete law...if people are faced with public shame and humilation if they become a baby factory..than the tendency to become a baby machine is greatly reduced. People have a need to be liked by others, and if resource-mongerers are effectively shunned from society (with nowhere else to go, either), I just don't see that many people straying from the fold, so to speak...

I agree with this. Going further - Martian settlers will be well educated. What funding source will expend billions of dollars to put high school drop-outs on Mars? Prospective parents will be well able to evaluate available resources. There will be NO public aid office for free food stamps (water stamps/air stamps) and prospective parents will know this very well. I believe that for a long long time any decision to have children will be made soberly after careful analysis of available resources.

clark, are you opposed to Dome B choosing to expand its resource base to support more children? Are you saying a Mars-wide government should restrict birthrates in domes not connected with those domes that oppose higher birth rates?

AltToWar · 2002-11-07 13:50:11

You keep going on about human dignity- how is human dignity compromised by us agreeing as a group on how many babies can be born in agiven year? Your claims are baseless.

Please look at a chart of population growth rates.
If you exclude nations that destroy babies or force abortions, you will see that nations with more civil liberties, free presses, and open markes have substantially lower birth rates than populations that are run by dictatorships or clans.

Please examine china. Because birth is restricted, Female children are deemed less valuable.

Whoops, we just devalued a human life there from the get go.

You forget, people will be living in an a situation where advanced medicine is available. They will be living inside most of the time, protected from many of the things that traditional kill people on earth. They will be largely free of disease becuase of the controlled environment.

Mars ain't tennesse. You are building in vacum. You must also provide all the air, water, and power to support the new habd (as well as the neccessary technical staff to operate it). You need extra mechanics to take on the extra workload of more machines that need maintanence. They will be putting up machines that require sophisticated computers- not cardboard rooms.

So which is it?
Mars will be the Mecca of modern medical technology, but will revert back to the stone age as far as materials science goes?

The Population problems here on earth are already dire in some nations. You can see what takes place in the enforcement of population control?

Do you wish to model a martian government on a nation like china?

I have proven with numbers that it will take at least 2 children per family just to keep a mars colony from shrinking.

You are working on several assumptions when you say birth rates will be an issue.

Sometimes it is prudent to assume the worst act accordingly. Sometimes the solution to a potential risk has a worse effect then the potential problem.

If you can find a way to enforce birth control that is both humane and dignified, you might just win yourself a nobel peace prize man.

Until that time take a look at history and the current world and realize the consequences of your proposed solution for an assumed threat.

Bill White · 2002-11-07 14:21:25

"clark, are you opposed to Dome B choosing to expand its resource base to support more children? Are you saying a Mars-wide government should restrict birthrates in domes not connected with those domes that oppose higher birth rates?"
No. Let them exand as much as they want- I am saying though that it is wiser to plan around what is available, not what is needed.
I also think that this should be handled by an individual dome- they know their carrying capacity, and they can decide how slow, or how fast they can grow. However, they should do so responsibly- if they want to have more children, then let them build like mad- let the local community decide- I as an individual can then decide if I need to get out of dodge becuase everbody in the dome has decided to be reckless.
Where do you go on mars if there is no space? Vacum.

On these points I find we agree completely. How boring.

The rest of the dispute is - IMHO - essentially beside the point. Very few people, if any, will be reckless enough to ignore resource requirements when they have babies.

Here on Earth, we have lots of

(a) uneducated people or
(b) people who assume they will be given resources from others to raise their children.

On Mars, I would think we can easily avoid (a) and (b) will not happen unless/until Mars has a very substantial human populations with a very well developed economy large enough to support a welfare state. So long as people are told just how much support they can expect - educated people will make sensible decisions.

It is like our illicit drug debate - if early settlers are chosen wisely, if they are mature, educated, responsible people we won't need no laws about birth rates or drug abuse or adulterous behavior because common sense and enlightened self interest will make the right choices seem obvious.

Bill White · 2002-11-07 14:29:30

There could be a waiting line- fine, but then those who have been in the colony longest would have the greatest opportunity- so the people that are more Martian than the newcomers get first crack. Does any of this seem unfair or draconian? You lose a child to an accident, well, they can decide how they want to handle that, but changing the "parental" staus allows them to get back in line and try again. Is it hard to imagine that we avoid the issue of "commericalizatio" by simply not allowing the liscences to be transferable? Or perhaps they can only valid for one year to prevent people from just sitting on theirs.

We could return to John Locke -

If a husband and wife expended their labor and their alloted share of resources to build an addition onto the hab, or worked over-time in the greenhouses making new soil or new hydroponic racks then they could "earn a baby" by creating the resources needed to care for that baby.

To all who proclaim an inherent right to make babies - I say sure, fine, okay - IF the parents can assure that the baby is cared for. I have said before that the decision to have a baby imposes considerable moral obligations on the parents and no one has the "right" to evade those obligations.

If you can fulfill those obligations, then, great!

Perhaps a couple could trade increased work assignments (more production) and then have a baby. TANSTAAFL.

This is why I like the idea of making soil from the mixing of compost, carefully processed human waste and regolith. Making more requires highly technical yet essentially routine or rote work. There will be no shortage of these "resources" if the settlement routinely ingests Martian CO2 and H20 and the settlers drink the water and the plants respirate the CO2 thereby fixing Martian elements into Terran organic molecules.

As carbon and hydrogen atoms harvested from Mars are continually added to the nascent biosphere and then stockpiled as unused plant waste or human waste, converting those resources into a useful form will mostly require the addition of human labor.

AltToWar · 2002-11-07 15:15:07

I have proven with numbers that it will take at least 2 children per family just to keep a mars colony from shrinking.
I'll agree with basic mathmatical truth. hown that larger populations though will lead to the problems I am describing. Do the damn math on 10,000 people with a construction rate of 10% of additional space being added to the exsisting space. Now figure 2 or three children per generation and you're screwed.

An average family size of 3, whith a life expecatnce of 80, will produce a 3% / year population. If you have a housing increase of 10% a year (thats a big increase) you end up with:

in 50 years, you will have 43,839 people and 1,173,908 Houses.

If you can find a way to enforce birth control that is both humane and dignified, you might just win yourself a nobel peace prize man.
Look at my previous post, I outlined a rather human and dignified way to deal with this- if you think otherwise, please show me how I am mistaken.
You can mail me the nobel prize later.

Oh yeah, thats right. Put birth control in drinking water and lay heavy taxes on mothers.

Taxing large familys has not worked in china. China will reach at least 2 billion before it's population drops off.

Adding medication in drinking water does not provide a measured, regular way of providing medication. It also will target both men and children with unnessicary medication.

They might ask for your Nobel Prize back once everyone the President of China grows breasts.

Pat Galea · 2002-11-07 15:40:26

I haven't had enough time to read through all the interesting posts on this thread, so if I am re-treading familiar ground, I apologise in advance.

I'll tackle clark's post here, as I think it raises all the points I want to address.

Here is the situation created that is allowed if some kind of consensus is not agreed to about the number of people being added to the population living in a controlled environment.
Take a colony of 10,000. Not 100, not 1000- 10,000 people.
I chooses 10,000 becuase that is a number large enough where individuals can become disaccoiated with identifying with the overall group- they begin to see less what their individual actions mean, or what effect they have on the entire group.
In a samll group, I can see the effects of my actions- my choices, becuase it is a small pool. In a large group though, it is harder to see how my individual actions (becuase I am only 1 of 10,000, not 1 or 100) contributing or hindering the group.
So we have 10,000 people. Let's say that we allow free and unfettered breeding- cool, we all get to pop out babies as fast as we want . Now, let us say that our engineers have calculated that they can add enough space, and build up rerserves to support more people for an etraa 1000 people a year. The first year, you've blown the maximum- 10,000 people have 5,000 babies- that is ONE child each.
So sure, they have more time since the babies don't need that extra space quite yet- so in 20 years, when they do need that space, there will be room for 20,000 more people. Except, we don't restrict breeding, or when people breeed, or anything at all. So in 20 years we don't have just 15,000 (children plus adults) but we have 30,000 if they have an average of two kids each- they *just* have enough room- but wait, since this IS a colony, people come primarily to start a life, and a family- so they have a few more children, and our average is more like 3 kids per couple- in 20 years we now have 40,000 people, but room for only 30,000.

I haven't checked your math, but it looks like it's in the ballpark.

My problem with your analysis is this. You have (tacitly) assumed that engineering decisions are made politically rather than economically. I'll now try to back up my statement so that it doesn't come across as a straight assertion...

When you say that the "engineers have calculated that they can add enough space, and build up reserves to support more people for an extra 1000 people a year", that is assuming they already know how much claim they can make on various resources: metals, energy and labor, for example. I think it's indisputable that the engineers would grant the ability to build a larger amount of support given greater resources to draw upon. (Whether those resources are available or not is a question that I am neglecting to answer for a short while.) My point right now is that the engineers have effectively been told that they have x tons of metal, y kilowatts of energy and z hours of labor to expend.

Now, stepping away from the problem for a bit, let's look at a genuine free-market economy. (It'll have to be a hypothetical one because no country on Earth is totally free, so all kinds of mucky real-world stuff would get in the way.) In this free-market economy, there is no central authority deciding where the various resources produced should be used. There is no pool of labor, for example, that is politically assigned to building bridges.

Instead, everyone within the economy tries to bid away resources from other people who want them. They'll pay the minimum they can get away with, but if they want them enough then they'll bid the price up. In this way, the resources will go to those who are prepared to pay the most for them.

For higher order goods (i.e. goods that are used as factors of production, to make other things, rather than 'low order' consumer goods), the price will be determined by the various businesses who use those goods in producing their own goods. The demand for their product will have an impact on the amount that they are prepared to pay for their resources; the more people want their end-product, the more they'll be willing to pay for their resources. Ultimately, the consumers decide where all the resources in the economy will be used.

Going back to the problem at hand, let's assume that the Martian colony is a completely free-market. The engineers work for a building company (or several companies; it doesn't affect the analysis). If the population is of low density, then the bidding for resources (such as water, living space, energy) will be relatively low. Only the easiest resources will be exploited, and the cheapest labor used. For example, you won't try to dig out that really hard rock which needs diamond drills to get through when there's a perfectly accessible bit of mud down the road for which you need only a hand-shovel. You won't employ your computer technician to dig holes; he'll be far too expensive for the job.

Basically, at any level of demand, there will always be resources that could in theory be exploited, but are simply uneconomic to do so.

As the population increases, the demand for these resources rises. It gets harder and harder to meet the demand using the current resources; extra water gets harder to find, all the easiest areas to build accomodation have already been used, all the cheapest labor is already working on the job. But because more money is now being bid for the resources, it becomes economically viable to start using those that were previously too expensive. It is now possible to employ people (who could be doing other jobs) to dig holes; metals and energy can be purchased that previously would have been used in other products. And because the demand for these resources is greater, it now becomes possible for the suppliers of these resources in turn to exploit ever more marginal sources. So they'll refine metals that were previously prohibitively expensive, and drill for water in deeper holes.

So the resources that are applied to the problem rise as the population decides that it is worth diverting resources from other applications. And that's without assuming any increase in technology (which would allow resources to be exploited at lower cost).

I cannot claim that such a distribution of resources is 'perfect' in some philosophical sense; all I can say is that it is rational, in a way that no other system I've seen can claim.

And so back to my point. By making the assumption of a political rather than a free-market distribution of resources, your secondary analysis is absolutely right. It is thoroughly implied by the initial assumption.

Ludwig von Mises warned of similar dangers in his paper Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism. While it's not covering exactly the same ground as we are talking about here, the philosophical point is the same. Once you admit any breach in the exercise of property and the free-market, the problems that arise will lead you quite logically to further restrictions of liberty. Those impositions in turn will result in effects that demand even further clamp-downs. Unless the leaders are prepared to accept some large area of massive resource misallocation (such as unemployment, for example) then they have no choice but to continue until they assume control over every aspect of people's lives (insofar as they have an economic impact).

I find that prospect rather disturbing.

Byron · 2002-11-07 16:06:41

Good post, Pat. While I do pretty much agree with your statements that the only way to have 100% rational decision-making is to have a 100% free-market type of situation...I do not think this is a realistic scenario for an early Martian settlement, for the simple reason that someone(s) is/are going to have to pay for the establishment of the settlement in the first place. And yes, they will have political objectives and exercise some degree of control over the new settlement (how big will it be? What kind of structure will be built?, etc). Even if a group of uber-millionaires got together and funded their own Martian colony, the local economy will be too small and rough-edged to ensure the safety of its residents on a wholly free-market system...there would have to be some sort of central agency to make certain enough air/water/food is produced to avoid any kind of life-threatening problem, and yes, the vast majority of people are willing to trade liberty for security, whether its actually warranted or not.

B

AltToWar · 2002-11-07 16:13:38

I'm not suggesting we put birth control in the water, Byron made that remark.
10,000 spaces for 10,000 people- 10% equals 1000 new spaces in a year.
10,000 people having 3 children = 10,000 parents, and 15,000 kids = 45,000 people in 20 years.
If we make only 1,000 spaces a year, we end up with room for 30,000 people after 20 years. (20x1,000=20,000)

10,000 spaces for 10,000 people- 10% equals 1000 new spaces in a year.

1000 increase in the first year,
1100 increase the second,
1210 increase the third,
...
5054 increase the 18th
5559 increase the 19th
6115 increase the 20th

Welcome to math

10,000 people having 3 children = 10,000 parents, and 15,000 kids = 45,000 people in 20 years.

Your numbers only work if your 10,000 people are origional settlers and all 20 years old at the beginning of the number system.

Even so if you worked out your numbers past 3 generations you will see from then on your numbers never increase over 3% a year.

Since an initial population of 10,000 20 yr old colonists is not very likeley, it must be assumed that your 10,000 colonists must be of varing age, already past the intital population boom and encountering the steady 3% groth rate.

If you allow a lifespan of 80 years you will get a 3% increase each year in population with an average 3 family home.

Using proper math and your numbers, in 20 years you have
18,000 people and 67,000 homes.

Pat Galea · 2002-11-07 17:22:45

Good post, Pat. While I do pretty much agree with your statements that the only way to have 100% rational decision-making is to have a 100% free-market type of situation...I do not think this is a realistic scenario for an early Martian settlement, for the simple reason that someone(s) is/are going to have to pay for the establishment of the settlement in the first place. And yes, they will have political objectives and exercise some degree of control over the new settlement (how big will it be? What kind of structure will be built?, etc). Even if a group of uber-millionaires got together and funded their own Martian colony, the local economy will be too small and rough-edged to ensure the safety of its residents on a wholly free-market system...there would have to be some sort of central agency to make certain enough air/water/food is produced to avoid any kind of life-threatening problem, and yes, the vast majority of people are willing to trade liberty for security, whether its actually warranted or not.
B

You've got a good point; I wouldn't expect an early relatively small colony to exist in a free-market, any more than I would expect a family to money-trade responsibilities and duties among themelves.

Interestingly enough (and this is a point often missed by capitalists), it is possible to have successful co-operative groups. They function well when each member of the group is working toward the same end, a shared goal; for example, the members of a religious order, or (indeed) the first Martian colonists who are struggling for survival continually on the brink of extinction.

The free-market comes into its own when you have a group of people who have widely divergent wants. Some want to drink lots of beer, others to eat lots of donuts. Some want to watch football, others to read science books. The problem then is to find some way, given the inevitable scarcity of resources, to rationally allocate those resources to satisfy consumers' and producers' wants.

AltToWar · 2002-11-07 17:22:48

okay, breed like rabbits, and die.
wake up one morning and realize that you won't be able to build habitats fast enough for the population being born.

ANSWER MY QUESTION: What do you do when you discover that you can not build enough habitat space for the expected population?

ANSWER MY QUESTION: What do you do when you discover that you can not build enough habitat space for the expected population?

ANSWER MY QUESTION: What do you do when you discover that you can not build enough habitat space for the expected population?

Decrese the ration of space per family.

Readjust the labor force to compensate.

Put 2 familys per habitat.

Look for alternatives to the current construction method.

Consider natural structures for expantions, like caves or valleys.

Request assistance from Home.

Build temporary structures.

Start a housing campaign.

Put a tarp over a valley.

dig a hole in the polar caps.

Put a tarp over a small crater.

Build brick and morter buildings.

Refit research or community space to living space.

Convert vehicles to living quarters.

I could keep going.

Life finds a way.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-07 17:27:58

One word: management.

Wow. That's profound!

AltToWar · 2002-11-07 17:35:46

The laws are not nessicary, and their enforcement is impossible.

With every life there is ,in addition to another mouth to feed, an additional contributor to the GDP.

turbo · 2002-11-07 18:22:37

That eventually there will be children, I have no doubt.
I would definately like the infrastructure increased before any families get created.

Small children do not each much, true. Their little lungs do not use much oxygen, true. But......

Infants are not capable of caring for their own needs, thus someone has to, thus decreasing the workforce available for other activities.

Unless our colonists are nudists, each one of the children will require clothing, that will have to be produced in different sizes.

The children will have to be schooled in some fashion to become contributing members of the colonies. Even if the home-schooling method is chosen, and electronic textbooks used, they will need assistance and power will be required.

Expecting mothers will require some form of medical care to guard against complications. Women have died in childbirth throughout history, and if it happens in the colony, then exactly who is to be removed from the workforce to care for the child?

I do see a massive building boom, if only the attempt of the colonists to escape from the smell of diapers.

turbo, veteran of more diaper changes than I care to remember

AltToWar · 2002-11-07 19:55:54

Realistic Scenerios:

2050: First manned mission to mars.
2080: International space agencies establish a semi-perminant base on mars.
2120: First Colony lands on mars.
Population: 100

The colony is made up of 100 people of age 30.
Their expressed goal is to establish perminant, self reliant life on mars.
Because of fears of overpopulation the colony restricts each family to 2 children per family.

The Colony lands with enough habitation and resource supply for 200 People comfortably.

2140: Base is well established.
Population 140
Generation 1: pop 97 MeanAge 50.
Generation 2: pop 43 MeanAge 10

Few womem chose to have children due to the high demand for their skills and legal restrictions. Some men, due to accedental overexposure to radiation, have become sterile.

One woman did have 8 children and another had 5, dispite the legal ramification. These women were heavily taxed.

The first generation's women begin to enter menopause.

There were 2 accidental deaths and one natural death in the colony.

2160: Labor Shortage
Population 132
Generation 1: pop 75 MeanAge 70.
Generation 2: pop 42 MeanAge 30.
Generation 3: pop 25 Mean Age 10.

The first generation of colonists are growing too old to fully contribute. There were not enough offspring to continue the work. Many projects are scaled down or eliminated.

Due to the labor shortage, many women wait to have a child, some have none at all.

One mother produced 5 children, another produced 3. Both were heavily taxed.

19 people die natually, 2 of accidents.

2180: Sharp Decline.
Population 97
Generation 1: pop 2 MeanAge 90.
Generation 2: pop 40 MeanAge 50.
Generation 3: pop 25 Mean Age 30.
Generation 4: pop 30 Mean Age 10.

As the first generation dies off of old age, the colony quickly sinks into numbers lower than the origional settlers.

The government, realizing it made a mistake, repeals all breeding laws. Labor shortages continue to plague the colony, and women still find it difficult to make time for a family.

Both generation 2 and 3 produced children. Generation 2 is slipping into menopause age.

One mother has 5 children, and the government happily agrees to subsadize her income.

2200: Reversal of law.
Population 118
Generation 1: pop 0 MeanAge rip.
Generation 2: pop 35 MeanAge 70.
Generation 3: pop 24 Mean Age 50.
Generation 4: pop 29 Mean Age 30.
Generation 5: pop 30 Mean Age 10.

The State begins mandating that all females bear at least 2 children before entering the work force. Some do not comply and are heavily taxed.

Because of the lack working age adults, and the removal of females from the work force, the labor shortage reaches a critical stage. A famine breaks out once, the elderly and the youngest taking the hardest hit.

2220: Failure.
Population 121
Generation 1: pop 0 MeanAge rip.
Generation 2: pop 1 MeanAge 90.
Generation 3: pop 22 Mean Age 70.
Generation 4: pop 28 Mean Age 50.
Generation 5: pop 30 Mean Age 30.
Generation 6: pop 30 Mean Age 10.

At the 100th annaversary. The state declares the colony a failure.

Within generation 6 are 2 cases of Anemia, 1 case of Spinobifida, and 1 child born with diabedies. Because of the limited gene pool over the past 3 generations, recessive hereditary diseases begin to show up.

All projections into the future predict that the colony does not have the labor power or genetic diversity to grow beyond it's current numbers successfully.

The chineese government has offered to take the colonist into their newly established colony. The colonists abandon camp and take them up on the offer.

The chineese, learning from the first colony, planned for and promotes heavy breeding; providing a bonus for familys with 3 or more children.

turbo · 2002-11-08 08:19:28

I can only hope that the support machinery will be upgraded or replaced as needs dictate. I would also like to think satellite colonies with machinery of their own will be constructed. More space available for more colonists AND better odds that at least some of the colonists will be alive if any type of disaster happens.

Palomar · 2002-11-08 09:13:19

*Wow, you guys are really getting into this thing, aren't you?

Thank goodness it takes 9 months to bring a baby along...and thank goodness additional supplies from Earth can be delivered to Mars in a shorter time than that.

I have a heart for the first female settlers who'll go through morning sickness in such a new and different environment; it's tough enough back here on terra firma. I remember morning sickness; suddenly feeling faint, the room spins, and having to literally CRAWL to the bathroom to throw up. It's something else. And cravings? Oh boy, what does the expectant settler do when she's craving a bowl full of fruit? I remember cravings; during my first pregnancy I once finished off an entire bowl of fruit in under 30 minutes and I didn't even realize I'd done it until there was a small pile of stems, seeds, and peels beside me. I don't quite know how to explain it; I was watching television and next thing I knew I'd devoured 2 bananas, a huge bunch of grapes, 2 pears, and a big apple...and I wasn't consciously aware of it until after the fact. It's sort of like instant gratification meets automatic pilot. Oh god, to have had that craving where there is no REAL fruit, just freeze-dried crapola. The first mothers of Mars have my respect, definitely.

Actually, I'm more concerned about the miscarriage rate amongst the earliest settlers; I'm think it'll be rather high for various reasons. And then a D & C will have to be performed on top of it...

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-11-08 13:21:48

To just keep the numbers of the colony from falling, each couple MUST average at least 2 children.

Now lets say 1 couple decides not to have children.

Another couple needs to have 4 children just to keep the average at 2.

One couple has fertility problems, now that other mother can bear 6 children and all is well.

out of 50 women you can have numbers like:

10 mothers : no children
10 mothers : 1 child
20 mothers : 2 children
6 Mothers: 3 children
2 Mothers: 6 Children
1 mother : 8 children
1 mother : 12 children

And STILL be at a 0% population growth.

The fact of the matter is that we do not want a colony that maintains it's current population, but one that grows.

Suppose the desired population increase rate is 2.5 children per family on average.

if one family opts out of breeding, another mother must bear 5 children to keep the average up.

out of 50 women you can have numbers like:

5 mothers : no children
5 mothers : 1 child
5 mothers : 2 children
15 mothers : 3 children
6 Mothers: 5 children
4 Mothers: 6 Children
2 mother : 8 children
1 mother : 10 children

If you do not have these minimum numbers of reproduction, you will face a labor shortage in 60 years.

If you do not keep these numbers up you will have a Gene pool crisis, as individuals must look to cousins to find breeding partners.

You speak of familys having rediculous numbers of children like 20 to 50.

One woman cannot bear 20 or 50 children.

You try to make a case aginst a few rogue mommies bearing too many children for the community to support. That we need to place laws to prevent rogue breeders.

It is my point that people who DONT have children put the colony at just as much risk as people who Do!

Luckily we will have a free colony of people who can lead their lives as they please. Those that personally decide not to breed can be balanced out by those who personally decide to breed more.

A government is best that governs the least.

You have failed to prove in any way that overbreeding is a cause for alarm in any but the most remote of possibilities.
Even then you claim that even though it is just a remote possability, there should still be a law in place, just in case.

I say that the loss of human freedom and dignity that will be spent in exhange for a law with no proven benefit outside of freak odds is too high a price spent for too little gained.

AltToWar · 2002-11-08 19:58:28

Bah, if you dont see the difference between regulating immigration and regulating what a woman does with her own womb, there is no point in arguing further.

I see government as a tool for the people to lead more happier, prosperous lives in a way of their choosing.

I see government having a role as small as possible to operate.

I know that when government interferes with manners that should best be left to the individuals, 9 out of 10 times the government will produce worse results.

I know that when matters of Humanity or Morality are involved, you cantrust individuals to make the proper decision more than you can trust a political body to.

I know that when you have a large, powerful government it will it lead to the few ruling over the many.

You see government as an opportunity to promote experiments in human morality. You like to see humans make inhumane decisions for 'the greater good'. You would prefer to take away the individuals right to make their own decisons about what's best for themselves and their community, and instead force them to do what you consider to be the correct action.

But I'm tired of this debate.

Go to mars, run for public office. Explain your platform of enforcing 'breeding rights,' taxing mothers, and all other forms of putting Big Brother in the colonists bedrooms in the name of a 'what if' improbable scenerio, and see how far you get.

Shadow151 · 2002-11-12 15:30:11

*wrappes duct tape around head so clark dosn't make head explode because of his "commie"ness.*

Alttowar is correct clark is incorrect

Palomar · 2002-11-12 16:35:06

I bow to the great intellect that is Shadow151. Your brilliance is only out done by the size of your own ego.
Commie? Do you feel better about yourself becuase you are able to cast insults at people without having to place yourself in harms way for reprisals?
My guess is that you feel empowered and are simply letting it go to your head. Poor shadow, always picked on for the way he looked or the way he talked- now he is born anew in this virtual world, able to move unmolested and unencumbered by what he says and who he says it to.
Even on the net, you're still a coward Shadow151. Perhaps you should concentrate on your personal skills in real life, it might be more rewarding.

*Indeed.

Shadow151, what year was the Berlin wall torn down? Do you know? Where you even -born- then?

Given your apparent fixation on "commies," I can't help but wonder what your working knowledge of communism and its history is. Probably not much, from the looks of things...

--Cindy

Auqakah · 2002-11-14 13:55:15

I haven't read through yet; but the title leapt out at me and I felt I had to comment.

"Right to have children"?

What right?

Nobody has that right; it is a privelage, surely. We have a right to live, certainly. But a right to create life? No, that is definitley a privelige. Not everyone is capable of it; and if you call it a right, then those who aren't capable are somehow deficient, as they aren't even capable of something that is a basic right to others. Therefore, it must be a privelige.

Don't you think?

Pat Galea · 2002-11-14 14:11:41

Nobody has that right; it is a privelage, surely. We have a right to live, certainly. But a right to create life? No, that is definitley a privelige. Not everyone is capable of it; and if you call it a right, then those who aren't capable are somehow deficient, as they aren't even capable of something that is a basic right to others. Therefore, it must be a privelige.
Don't you think?

Nope.

The word "right" does not imply capability.

You may have a right to climb Mount Everest. But you may not be physically capable of doing so. That does not negate the existence of the right.

Being incapable of exercising a right is not in itself necessarily a sign of deficiency.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-11-07 08:29:50

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

#27 2002-11-07 12:51:30

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

#28 2002-11-07 13:00:09

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

#29 2002-11-07 13:21:25

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

#30 2002-11-07 13:50:11

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

#31 2002-11-07 14:21:25

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

#32 2002-11-07 14:29:30

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

#33 2002-11-07 15:15:07

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

#34 2002-11-07 15:40:26

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

#35 2002-11-07 16:06:41

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

#36 2002-11-07 16:13:38

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

#37 2002-11-07 17:22:45

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

#38 2002-11-07 17:22:48

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

#39 2002-11-07 17:27:58

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

#40 2002-11-07 17:35:46

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

#41 2002-11-07 18:22:37

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

#42 2002-11-07 19:55:54

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

#43 2002-11-08 08:19:28

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

#44 2002-11-08 09:13:19

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

#45 2002-11-08 13:21:48

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

#46 2002-11-08 19:58:28

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

#47 2002-11-12 15:30:11

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

#48 2002-11-12 16:35:06

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

#49 2002-11-14 13:55:15

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

#50 2002-11-14 14:11:41

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

Board footer