From: Mike Lorrey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Feb 18 2002 - 08:50:20 MST
Emlyn O'regan wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Its fairly simple: a spaceship is going to be the most space, energy,
> > and mass restrictive habitat that humans have ever
> > encountered and will
> > thus require that the crew be planned to operate by the most stable
> > social structures humans have evolved for. T'ain't no welfare moms in
> > space.
> Uh, are you proposing a capitalist economy on board the generation ship?
What I'm proposing is that the ship hasn't got room or resources for
unproductive individuals, nor does it need the social strife and
developmental trauma that is produced in kids by the 'alternative'
family structures our big city social engineers prefer (mostly because
they deliver the most votes for the proper political party).
> Well, maybe you'd want all women + sperm banks?
Monogamous couples, though sperm banks would be a fine way to enhance
the genetic variance of the crew and the eventual colony.
Now, it's obvious that the writer of the original article was preferring
monogamous heterosexual couples, which likely stuck in Harvey's craw
just a smidgen.
> Of course, the whole generation ship thing looks pretty silly really,
> excepting if it is an end in itself. If the people on board actually want to
> live in space, and arrival at the destination planet is incidental to them,
> then it makes some more sense. Sometimes I think that might be cool, but
> then I wake up to myself.
The writer of the original article obviously doesn't consider cryonic
suspension and mind uploading/downloading into clones to be viable
technologies, now or in the future.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:39 MST