Should asgardia have population control?

Total number of votes: 97

33.0% Yes.

17.5% No.

13.4% This would be immoral.

36.1% Maybe, It depends on how it's implemented

Dec 31, 16 / Cap 30, 00 04:48 UTC

Population Control  

In a space civilization resources are finite more so than on earth. It's not going to be possible to allow people to procreate "willy nilly".

What methods would or should be enacted to prevent population from growing to unsustainable levels?

Should people be allowed to choose their own partners or should offspring be seeded based upon genetics and desired traits? -- We have the opportunity to take human psyche out of the equation and breed children with desired genetic traits. While not the egalitarian approach -- I would argue that it is the pragmatic one.

Dec 31, 16 / Cap 30, 00 06:03 UTC

Does this mean the Asgardia's Supreme Court would decide every citizen's reproductive right but not by him or herself? It seems autocratic, doesn't it? Because in most nations in the world, the right of reproduction is bestowed by the God, isn't it?

Jan 4, 17 / Aqu 04, 01 15:43 UTC

Government control over reproductive rights is terrifying. But I wonder if population control will be an issue at all? Referring to sweeping generalisations here, but educated people have fewer children, religious people have more. In a society that is focused on science and knowledge, where religion is is a personal practice rather than a part of the societal fabric, there will be fewer people having children anyway. Oh, and having free contraceptives to reduce unplanned surprises is a good idea too.

I had a quick google of "reasons why people have children" and I got the following list, which is quite interesting (particularly as someone who never wanted children). Rather than "controlling" the population, if you look at why people have children and support alternatives lifestyle choices then you reduce the number of people having kids for reasons other than wanting to be a parent - which is really the only reason anyone should have kids!

  1. To have someone to take care of them when they get old.
  2. To carry on family name.
  3. Because they love babies.
  4. It's human nature.
  5. Pregnancy and childbirth are life experiences.
  6. To let their children (who don't exist yet) experience the joy of existence.
  7. To give your parents grandchildren.
  8. To embody love for each other.
  9. They want children of their own, with their own bloodline.
  10. They don't know. (it's just what everybody does)

Ideally, IMHO, people should only have children because they want the responsbility and reward of being a parent. Most of the reasons in the list above are cultural; ideas that are programmed into us so we continue a tradition. By the time Asgardia has a space civilization, the culture will be different. Our value as individuals will be based on what we do with our own lives, regardless of whether we create new ones or whose name we inherited. We can have a respected aged care system so we don't fear a future without our own children as carers. We can encourage other pursuits and experiences that provide joy and give value to the world. We can find fun new meaningful ways to express our love and devotion to each other.

If the only people having children are the people who deeply desire to be parents, the population will probably be sustainable.

And definitely have free contraception. It's fantastic.

Jan 4, 17 / Aqu 04, 01 22:48 UTC

Vulcan logic would have to apply here. "The needs of the many outweigh the neds of the few, or the one".

The fragile, delicate and very finite nature of life on a space habitat would have to take priority over individual reproductive rights as a matter of necessity. In a space habitat, every breath of air and every drop of water has to be very closely managed to ensure that there is enough for all.

Do we seriously want to go down the same road as we have on earth? However, the consequences of overpopulation on a space habitat are far more serious when compared to the situation on earth - everyone could die.

  Updated  on Jan 5, 17 / Aqu 05, 01 02:48 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Jan 5, 17 / Aqu 05, 01 02:07 UTC

We are talking about population control... Nice. People wouldn't dream to say that out loud in the streets or a bar.

I think the name should evolve into sustainable cohabitation, it's the same thing, just sounds more rational and less like a blood bath.

It is said that animals in captivity don't reproduce as much as they do in their natural environment. I want to think that they are smarter then us in that aspect.

I think we must have kids in space, that's the way to go. Now... I've seen that in the UK a child can be made from 3 people. So maybe it won't be that complicated to "share a child" sounds awful and kind of odd but the point would be to raise it as a collective.

I previously posted on education and the involvement of the state in raising a child.

I will repost this there, I think it will be relevant to the discussion there to.

So... Yeah! No more than can be carried it would be deadly to do otherwise.

Have a nice day!

Jan 5, 17 / Aqu 05, 01 06:17 UTC

Are you guys nuts?! We're supposed to be a peaceful nation!!!

Population control is absolutely out of the question, for two reasons.

  1. Technological discovery will GREATLY out-pace population growth.

  2. Attempting to adopt such methods would cause a constitutional crisis.

Jan 5, 17 / Aqu 05, 01 09:35 UTC

Not nuts - realistic.

Look what is happening to the earth now. Unchecked population growth is happening at a rate grossly in excess of any technology advances to offset it. This is the single root cause of the vast majority of the issues currently facing humanity.

Plus it boils down to the law of conservation of matter and energy. In other words, there comes a point where no more life sustaining resources can be provided for a given closed system (like a space habitat). Put another way - 5 loves of bread and 2 fish can't feed 5,000 people.

  Updated  on Jan 5, 17 / Aqu 05, 01 09:54 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Jan 5, 17 / Aqu 05, 01 09:55 UTC

We are, indeed, a peaceful nation. Any moves to support population control would probably fail becuase:

  1. One of the purposes of Asgardia is to escape laws that prevent Earthlings from achieving their full potential as researchers, experts and humanitarians. Restricting the mind or the body restricts our ability to do our best. I don't believe that denying a biological function fits with the concept.

  2. This is a community based on peace, humanity and knowledge. We will develop our own culture. In time, many of the cultural norms in current Earth societies that promote reproduction will not exist or have a lower impact. The birth rate will therefore be naturally lower among Asgardians.

  3. We don't know what, or who, we're talking about. For The long-forseeable future, nobody will live in Asgardia. It's will be a digital nation, then at some point a space station that only scientists will physically attend. By the time there is a full-sized living community in space, technology and culture will be so different that any discussions today about overpopulation may be completely irrelevant by then. Asgardians of the future may look back at these discussions and think "What in Space where they thinking?!? Can you believe they thought that would be an issue? How primitive!" :)

Jan 5, 17 / Aqu 05, 01 23:51 UTC

No body is talking about killing anybody.

Peace all the way my friends.

We are talking about sustainable cohabitation, enough air, food and water for everybody... See, it's not as simple up there.

If we are the first space nation there is no doubt we will be among the first explorers of the vast space, by we I mean maybe my kids.

Point is, what if you send a ship to the end of the Galaxy, and before they get there they are all dead because the team of 50 turned into a team of 5,000 and the ship was designed to sustain only 500 people at anytime. I mean, it's not like you can go to Walmart for food.

Anyways, we will be 10b soon. 😊

Jan 7, 17 / Aqu 07, 01 21:56 UTC

The overpopulation on the planet is a COMPLETE MYTH, taught at school in a lot of countries. It is based on a 19th century theory who have be proven to be wrong. Overpopulation may exist on local basis, true, but it is due to bad politics.

The United Nations has publicized 3 scientific predictions on population growth (Low, middle and high). In all the history of the United Nations, the low prediction has always been the closest to the thrust.

Some governments politics in that matter, like in China for example, are clearly a blot for the human rights. We can't allow that kind of thing on Asgardia.

Now it is obvious that the day we'll have a space station the number of spaces will be limited, but that's not about any "population control".

Jan 7, 17 / Aqu 07, 01 22:52 UTC

@SirCedric - What is the driver for the limited spaces then? It seems you are contradicting your own argument.

It's Ecology 101 - a given environment can only sustain a particular population if:

A. There are sufficient resources for life - in our case, that means (as an absolute minimum) oxygen, water and nutrients.

B. There is sufficient capacity for the environment to process wastes - in our case (again, as a minimum) carbon dioxide and human "leavings".

BTW, the Population Research Institute is a thinly veilled front for right wing Catholics in the USA. These are the same people that will look you in the eye and tell you the universe was created 6,000 years ago.

Jan 11, 17 / Aqu 11, 01 07:03 UTC

@ Scarbs: I agree with you about limited space, but this is not about Population control. I mean: we're far to be able to organize a safe birth in space for now, so it is obvious that any pregnant woman has to come back Earth to give birth, with actual technology. We won't send more people to space than what a station/shuttle can maintain, it will be stupid. But once again it's not about population control in itself, it's just basic environmental sustenance in a specific situation: A space station.

And about the Population research Institute, I personally know some of them myself, and as a scientist I've never heard about any "Creationism"(which is obviously as scientific as astrology...) among them. Yes, most of them, but not all, are Catholics, but their arguments are clear.

Jan 17, 17 / Aqu 17, 01 21:23 UTC

I think population control should be primarily managed as a societal issue, not a legal one (barring the possible acute population crisis). By this, I mean that if we Asgardians provide for everyone higher education, our birth rate will naturally be lower than an uneducated population- if we encourage a socially-oriented mindset in our population, we will naturally modify our own population growth to suit the needs of the community.

Additionally, as markjcooke mentioned, the free market system could further mitigate these issues- as the population grows and Asgardia's needs grow, resource prices will fluctuate accordingly.

Finally, if we do reach an acute population growth crisis, governmental policies may have to change to deal with the problem. I think the best way to do this would be to fluctuate taxation to reflect the needs of the community- times of excessive growth could provide tax incentives to avoid population growth, and times of shrinkage could provide incentives to have more children. For the former, we could incentivize adoption rather than procreation- even in an ideal society, there will be orphans and so on.

Jan 22, 17 / Aqu 22, 01 06:14 UTC

Mysterywriter221 I think that if and when we have built the space station we may become xenophobic of our own brothers and sisters on Earth over time. (Something I hope that never comes to fruition.) Also SirCedric, calling population control another name is like when the alphabet boys (You know which ones.) decided to call torture "enhanced interrogation". Call it what it really is. A euphemism. Still InsanityOS and Mysterywriter221, an adoption agency seems like a excellent idea but that would have to be more monitored a great deal to ensure the adopted children haven't been placed in abusive or destructive families.

  Last edited by:  Marlon Diaz (Asgardian)  on Jan 22, 17 / Aqu 22, 01 06:46 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: I remembered the word. It was euphemism.

Jan 22, 17 / Aqu 22, 01 13:04 UTC

I'd like to know the ratio of male to female Asgardians. I've been wondering ever since I saw the flag entries.