Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Generation Ships--- Can we build one now?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7563304" data-attributes="member: 177"><p>With respect, most societies on Earth (including both static and not-so-static ones) prior to, say, the 19th century, were, by modern human rights standards anyway, shockingly repressive. So I don't think you can really pin that on them being static. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not so much as to kill off a quarter of the population, no. But goodness, dude, there's a middle ground in there!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No. They are forced to meet some <em>standards of results</em> for their culture, like having a pretty stable population. Note, it isn't like they must have *exactly* X people alive at any given moment - they just need to be generally stable. They can make changes in how they achieve that stability - they can monitor the results over some years and alter what they are doing if they see significant deviation from what is needed. But, historically, absolutely free reproduction leads to growth, so that's probably not an option unless the population has fallen low, and then only for a while.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it was a strawman, invented position that overstates a need by a large degree. As such, I disregard it, rather than try to classify its moral quality.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Disagree... with what? With the fact that, in this scenario, thousands will die and the mission will fail if they blithely disregard the physical limitations of the situation in which they find themselves? That's kind of like disagreeing that the world is round, or that if you dump too much carbon into the atmosphere, the world will warm up*. I mean, you can do it - you can disagree. But you'd just be wrong, and in severe cases, risk hurting many people with your willful denial of reality.</p><p></p><p>Disagree <em>with how we implement limits</em> on population growth and decline? There, we have some room to negotiate. There are several ways to get to the same results. </p><p></p><p>By the way, this is another reason to take a large population - if the population is large, you get to have kids with who you want, and statistics will take care of the details in the long run.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs, dude. My folks fled the Soviets. </p><p></p><p>I am also very, very aware that most people <em>did not have the option</em> to flee from the Soviets back after WWII. My close family was lucky, my extended family was not, and I accept that. Those who can flee are generally a minority. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, no. Today's repressive dictatorship is tomorrow's civil-war battlefield, and in a decade maybe it is a free democracy. The changeover, historically, isn't very quick.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>*I mean, you probably want to think about that, really deeply. You, and I, and pretty much everyone reading EN World, already live on what is to first approximation a very large, but still closed, environment. We are apt to have to accept, within our lifetimes, some major changes to how we do things if we are to allow our grandkids and beyond to live some semblance of a decent life. How much restriction of your lifestyle are you willing to put up with for that mission to succeed? Are your personal freedoms more important than the conditions under which future generations will live?</p><p></p><p>And, by extension, are we repressive in making those changes, even if some folks don't agree with them?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7563304, member: 177"] With respect, most societies on Earth (including both static and not-so-static ones) prior to, say, the 19th century, were, by modern human rights standards anyway, shockingly repressive. So I don't think you can really pin that on them being static. Not so much as to kill off a quarter of the population, no. But goodness, dude, there's a middle ground in there! No. They are forced to meet some [I]standards of results[/I] for their culture, like having a pretty stable population. Note, it isn't like they must have *exactly* X people alive at any given moment - they just need to be generally stable. They can make changes in how they achieve that stability - they can monitor the results over some years and alter what they are doing if they see significant deviation from what is needed. But, historically, absolutely free reproduction leads to growth, so that's probably not an option unless the population has fallen low, and then only for a while. I think it was a strawman, invented position that overstates a need by a large degree. As such, I disregard it, rather than try to classify its moral quality. Disagree... with what? With the fact that, in this scenario, thousands will die and the mission will fail if they blithely disregard the physical limitations of the situation in which they find themselves? That's kind of like disagreeing that the world is round, or that if you dump too much carbon into the atmosphere, the world will warm up*. I mean, you can do it - you can disagree. But you'd just be wrong, and in severe cases, risk hurting many people with your willful denial of reality. Disagree [I]with how we implement limits[/I] on population growth and decline? There, we have some room to negotiate. There are several ways to get to the same results. By the way, this is another reason to take a large population - if the population is large, you get to have kids with who you want, and statistics will take care of the details in the long run. Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs, dude. My folks fled the Soviets. I am also very, very aware that most people [i]did not have the option[/i] to flee from the Soviets back after WWII. My close family was lucky, my extended family was not, and I accept that. Those who can flee are generally a minority. Well, no. Today's repressive dictatorship is tomorrow's civil-war battlefield, and in a decade maybe it is a free democracy. The changeover, historically, isn't very quick. *I mean, you probably want to think about that, really deeply. You, and I, and pretty much everyone reading EN World, already live on what is to first approximation a very large, but still closed, environment. We are apt to have to accept, within our lifetimes, some major changes to how we do things if we are to allow our grandkids and beyond to live some semblance of a decent life. How much restriction of your lifestyle are you willing to put up with for that mission to succeed? Are your personal freedoms more important than the conditions under which future generations will live? And, by extension, are we repressive in making those changes, even if some folks don't agree with them? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Generation Ships--- Can we build one now?
Top