Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!olivea!mintaka!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!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: <21339@crg5.UUCP>
Date: 12 Mar 91 07:39:05 GMT
References: <1991Feb22.164032.16901@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Mar8.185043.21138@linus.mitre.org> <7573@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <21320@crg5.UUCP> <64568@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Reply-To: szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc
Lines: 46

In article <64568@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> arandia@acsu.buffalo.edu (joel d arand
ia) writes:
>szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>>As I pointed out previously, the human race will _not_ expand, because
>>the natural equilibrium population growth rate with reliable birth control
>>is c. -50% per generation. ...
>
>       Why?  In the future, why would people only be allowed to have only
>2 or less children?

I didn't say we _shouldn't_ expand off-planet, I said we _won't_.  The
-50% figure is based on current statistics of those populations with the
most reliable birth control -- breakeven to slightly negative birth rate,
and c. 50% of pregnancies unplanned.   In general these populations are also
the wealthiest, and have _less_ resource pressure and social pressure
regarding overpopulation, than comparable populations with less reliable 
birth control.  The equilibrium birthrate of -50%/generation is based on
personal choice, where it can be made distinct of intercourse.   It is
not based on laws or overpopulation pressures.   

A space colony will almost surely be a technically skilled population 
with reliable birth control.  It cannot survive without continual 
immigration, nor can humans survive on earth with the equilibrium growth 
rate over the long term.

BTW, there have been posted or e-mailed to me several schemes for
changing the birthrate.  Most of them missed the point entirely, with the
end effect being "discouraging birth among the poor" or something similarly
irrelevant or contradictory to increasing the equilibrium growth rate.    
This reflects our current cultural attitudes regarding population growth.
The most depressing thing was that they were all made up by men, and totally 
ignored the needs and desires of the people who actually give birth (and 
control much of the choice), women.  If there exists a general solution 
to changing the equilibrium birthrate, it will address the needs and 
desires of women, not to mention probably being created and implemented 
by women.  This isn't meant to be sexist, just recognition that culture 
and biology place much of the choice and burden of childbirth and rearing, 
and thus population growth, on women. 


-- 
Nick Szabo			szabo@sequent.com
"If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty
The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any
organization I may be affiliated with.