Re: 160 for Space Migration

From: Lee Daniel Crocker (
Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 - 11:03:46 MST

> (Spike Jones <>):
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > 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.
> Mine too. I figure one of the biggest challenges in a multigeneration
> mission would be entertainment. I suspect everybody would be
> humping everybody. Every possible use for genitals imaginable and
> some unimaginable would be tried at some time or other. I consider
> that one of the very few bright spots in the dreary life the people who
> could never leave the confines of the ship, never see a sunrise, never
> see a sun at all. spike

But the author does have a point: we can afford not to discriminate
here on Earth, but there are good reasons to do so on a colony mission.
For example, I'm not likely to ever be on any such mission, because
for the cost of pushing 105 kg of me out of the gravity well you could
send two young, healthy, petite, 50 kg women and a dewar of sperm,
which would be better for the colony. Likewise, sending heterosexual
couples would also be more likely to lead to beneficial population
growth. Sure, the homosexual folks will have children by various
means as well, but the heteros are more likley to have _unplanned_
pregnancies, and I think that such "accidents" will probably still be
a significant part of population growth, just as they are here.

Lee Daniel Crocker <> <>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:40 MST