Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!samsung!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo
From: szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Why bother? (was Re: Terraforming, sun shield)
Message-ID: <21269@crg5.UUCP>
Date: 1 Mar 91 01:21:24 GMT
References: <5705@optilink.UUCP> <1991Feb22.164032.16901@zoo.toronto.edu> <21260@crg5.UUCP> <7107@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc
Lines: 21

In article <7107@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>This assumes that reproductive policies will be the same in space
>settlements as on our overcrowded planet.  I can see no reason why
>this should be so.

I demonstrated that negative population growth is the natural
equilibrium state of humans with reliable birth control.  This is borne out 
by statistics from groups with the greatest access to reliable birth
control -- developed countries in general and college-educated women in 
particular -- regarding the frequency of births, planned and unplanned.  
Members of these groups are operating under personal/social choice, not 
any "policy" or law.   They do not suffer from any lack of resources; in 
fact they represent the wealthier members of the wealthiest societies in 
history.  I see no reason why the natural equilibrium would be different 
on a space colony.


-- 
Nick Szabo			szabo@sequent.com
"What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?"  -- RAH