Having no knowledge on the topic what so ever... i can assume that it would be more intelligent and practical to simulate the desired effects in a man-made apparatus in the center of where ever we desired to live on the surface

ie. big oscilating sphere of "whatever the fuck you were implying about mars core"... in the center of every mars city we construct... sound plausible?

(honestly... you people, and your grandio's delusions of terraforming >.> hehehe )

Things you need on an earthlike planet:

1) Magnetic field to keep the atmosphere.  Gravity does hold an atmosphere down, but solar wind is stronger than gravity in the long run.  That's why Mars lost its atmosphere in the first place.

2) Comparable gravity, which means damn close to earth size.

3) Tilted axis.  Where are you going to get seasons [EDIT:  Wrote tides first because I wasn't paying attention] if you don't have a tilted axis?  If you don't have a tilted axis, you get no seasons, which means nothing you bring is going to survive in the wild.

4) Good dirt.  Mars' dirt is poisonous.  Literally.  You will not get shit to grow on Mars unless you not only create a magnetic field, somehow create an atmosphere, and tilt the axis enough to create seasons, you're also going to have to get soil with organic nutrients.  How are you going to do that when there's no life on Mars?  You're going to fill a spaceship with dirt?  Good luck getting off the ground.

If you go a long way to a new planet, and any one of these things isn't available, you're fucked.

I've often thought how ironic it is that most people think of evolution as something that tries to make lifeforms "better."  For pure survival, the simplest life forms are by far the best.  Ants outnumber people by billions.  Bacteria outnumber ants by trillions.

It seems like there's been a running theme for a couple of months now.  Morality, prostitution, evolution, etc... and all of it comes back around to the idea that "good" is a quality like "green," when it just isn't.  Without humans here to make value judgements, all it is is a bunch of genes using some pretty elaborate mechanisms (creatures) to keep reproducing.

Not that it's worth a lot, but I commend you for your decision.  I've had first hand experience with people in your position who thought that having a child would fix their problems.  All it did was create a new person with the same problems.  The way I look at it, an adoption agency would not let you adopt a child because of your condition, so does it make any sense to make one?  Thank you for being responsible.  Seriously.

You've heard my position on abortion before, I'm sure.  I'm all for people voluntarily ending their genetic line when it's accumulated serious problems. 

Hamby, I think the main thing here that is missing is imagination, brother.

1) We know an extremely easy and efficient way to shield humans from radiation in space right now.  Now.  2008.  A shield of some H2O.  Ok, not that big of a problem.

2) Gravity.  I for one think the idea of actually colonizing actual planets may be a pipedream that we realize is a stupid thing to do eventually.  Planets are a good collection point for getting certain materials.  But to live on one?  Why the fuck would we want to do that?  Tectonic quakes, weather patterns, extreme difficulty in changing the rotation of the planet and its orbit speed around its mother star, etc.  Fuck that.  That's like trying to make the natural universe adapt to us.  I say let us adapt our artificial habitats to the universe.  MUCH, MUCH easier.  We know a very simple way to simulate gravity in outerspace right now.  You make a large enough vehicle that you can place it into a spin.  All you have to do is set the spin at the correct speed for a comfortable gravity.  No problem.

3) Tilted Axis, seasons.  On a huge space lab, this can easily be artificially created.  Moreso, it can be improved upon.  We can set up different areas to simulate different seasons.  Plus...well I don't know if this would work on plants, but did you know that a lot of chicken farms will simulate day and night twice as fast as it is in reality?  It almost doubles the egg laying of the chickens.  Maybe we can provoke increased production in plants the same way with half as long seasons.  Worth a look, I guess.  All of this is again no insurmountable problem.  In the future just visit planets for resources.  Don't live on those balls of dirt.  That's just adding problems.

4) Hauling dirt to space.  Space Elevator.  Actively being worked on.  Only thing left to construct is the cable material.  And that's being worked on the world over for a variety of reasons.  Give it a decade or two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

Forget permanent stays on new planets.  We just need to get huge space biospheres going.  Then you can easily move it around when the wayward comet or asteroid comes your way.  It'll be like a very slow and boring version of pong where you would rather miss the ball than hit it.  Visit planets and asteroid fields for material.  Hell we could syphon off Jupiter for a hella lot of hydrogen for fuel.  Plus Solar technology. 

We ain't tied to this planet.  This is just our cradle.

Let's get our asses off this ball before we pull a Dinosaur extinction event.

To these woman, and any that have more than 2 or 3 kids:

The cigar IOU chit is getting filled up at this point. This is exactly the reason that I'm such a huge fan of Dawkins. It wasn't the atheism (which made me think, "Wow, this guy really IS on my team!&quot, it was The Selfish Gene. What a great way to express the whole system.

But seriously, in terms of adaptability, there are forms of bacteria that can survive on Nylon. Shit we just make up, and they adapt. Vents in the ocean spewing super-hot sulfuric liquid? Yeah, that'll do as food. No light? No problem. No oxygen? No problem. In terms of adaptability, bacteria are amazing, and humans are the biggest pussies ever.

I like that guy.

I should be more active in the thread a started ,but I get really busy. A quick point even if we can get to another planet an over populated earth would over populate that planet in just a few generations at our current rate.  Now I would start ranting ,but I'll let Adam Coralla do it for me.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GNzzQjHNz6U

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5v1CBeIHfpU&feature=related

They're certainly feasible in one form or another, but my objections are largely with how reasonable that type of overly-controlling policy can be. Such programs are open to terrible abuse, and they're administered by people who cannot possibly predict the outcome of their actions, despite the fact that the very actions they're taking are pre-emptive and predictive by their nature. There are simply too many variables. I understand that you'd be strictly talking about sterilization regarding severe genetic defects, but those genetic defects already present an obstacle to reproduction without state intervention. In your case, you've described both a death wish, and a specific plan to not reproduce. Why would you need state help to reach that decision? Would it be any of the state's business? I can't imagine a situation where I'd say anything but "Fuck NO!"

Any nation has its theoretical sovereignty. My concern would be that the type of bureaucrat that this kind of program attracts would be those who'd really like the feeling of having power over life and death. They wouldn't necessarily be as fair-minded or level-headed or intelligent as you are.

Also, please note that I have libertarian leanings, so my objection to all but the most necessary functions of the state can be taken for granted (and with a grain of salt). The libertarian argument seems particularly strong where biology enters the picture, though, because of its massive complexity and unpredictability that surpass even complex markets (the subject of the usual libertarian arguments).

Thus my "libertarian leanings" rather than party membership. The "leaning" is: people will be fucking ridiculous whether you tell them to or not. Let's not get too perfectionistic about which parts of their lives we can control, and address issues we can.

Apart from the argument that no person is an island (that is, riding a motorcycle without a helmet definitely does harm other people, unless that person is completely without a single social bond) it's an interesting idea to assume that genetics will entirely dominate a person's existence. Should then people who are poor also assume the same kind of responsibility and not bring children into the world for fear that they might experience poverty?

It's a silly example, I know, but I'm enjoying the conversation. (A conversation that wouldn't be possible if you had never been born, naturally.) I guess my problem beyond the issue of personal freedom is that I like you. You swear at stupid people, and that's funny. Also, I've been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, and I've been cured. So while in your perspective, there is no cure, I would beg to differ.

Yes. But genetics aren't everything.

You know, I've been following this thread since its inception, but hadn't contributed because I'm not really sure how I feel about population control (the fact that I'm dating someone who wouldn't exist had his parents not immigrated from China sort of complicates thing I guess).

But anyways, I had gotten to the second page, and thought "I wonder why nobody has mentioned families like the Duggars yet..." and then I get to this page, and there's this gem.

In all seriousness, though, as cool as inhabiting Mars and space exploration are, I'd like to return for a moment to the original topic of "breeding rights" and ask: What do you guys think of families like the Duggars?

http://www.duggarfamily.com

my thought is that breeding laws are unenforcable meaningless and costly free will and disease still manage population here in the us btw not all dumb ppl have dumb kids genetics is a game of chance and mutation i understand the idea behind a breeding law but think about the law in montana  

>

Missionary style is the only position allowed between and man and a woman

no really!! no doggie, cowgirl, 69, oral, mutual masturbaton, or evan toys!!! i should be in prison for life could you imagine going to prison pregnant cause you broke a breeding law!!! that is absurd yes free vasectomy and tubal litigation and yes to condoms and the pill and the control and aborton but a breeding law goes to far i think that this goverment could do better educating the ppl and letting them take responcability once i always have and evan tho my genes would be a boon to intelligence my child count is zero. sex laws never work EVER prostitution is illigal it many states where it florishes like wildire gay sex was illigal in mt that don't stop a damm thing ppl do sex wether the law likes it or not it is a basic and VITAL instinct we can't clone ppl here in nd and many states have outlawed it so FUCK we do

the better plan is to work with the ppl and make them take a good idea home like one child per for two generations then the pop would manage it for you cops suck enough on the highway they shouldn't have to do that in the bedroom(yes its a inuendo ) btw have any of you herd about the lady at wal mart

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=218849

http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2008/03/05/tinley-park-mom-leaves-child-in-car-endangerment/

with cops that are this badass we should just hand them the keys to our homes let them sit in and decide how where and who that would be a utopia they may make a girl do it at 14 cause she is muslim and a saidi arabian her 8 year old husband won't mind missonary she won't be a lot of work to move around

point is goverments and sex don't mix because if they did mr bill would be in jail for 5 years for perjery oral isn't sex its umm aah lolwut

btw do these breeding laws preclude race ? that would suck i kinda like the black ladys and the native girls and the white women and the tiny japanese maidens whith there cute little noses oh and the sinoritas aren't bad either

the country that could use some deconverting is mexico i think condoms are illgal there (catholic country!!!)

I think what kaab is getting at in a round about sort of ranting way is that, like I have said before, rights are something that exist only if they exist.  Since we live in America, we have the right to argue about this.  If we lived in Iran, we wouldn't. 

In a way, I feel kind of responsible for some of the digressions in this thread because I haven't been my usual stickler for definitions and details.  Rights are very much like morality.  They're not absolute, but they're also not arbitrary.  I doubt there's any conceivable government where every citizen has the "right" to assume the presidency whenever they feel like it.  Similarly, try finding a culture where every person has the "right" to bring someone home from a bar and have sex with them on the couch in front of their whole family.  Rights, like morality, are somewhat dictated by our evolution.  This means they're not arbitrary.  However, as we can see by the myriad governmental systems around the world and throughout history, they're also definitely not absolute.

So, to answer the question, "Do people have a right to breed?" we need to know more information.  In America?  Yes.  Absolutely.  In China?  No.

Should people have a right to breed?  I don't know.  What's the goal?  To spread Islam as fast as possible throughout the world?  Yes.  Muslims should not only have the right to breed, they should be encouraged to have very large families.  What about if the goal is to save what is left of our polluted waterways, virgin forests, and endangered species?  No.  People should not have the right to breed.  If this is taken to its extreme, there are those who would make the argument that nobody has the right to have any children!  They will say that we have caused so much damage that the only way to preserve what's left is for people to become extinct.

I don't subscribe to that view, at least not until I have about six beers in me, but the point is not to espouse a particular point of view.  I'm trying to show that the question is meaningless without context.

Bitter?

Is "dumb" the result genetics or lack of educaition? Sure, genetics play a part in your capacity to learn and reason but I think a large portion of dumbness is due to ignorance which could be fixed. If we'd quit squandering all our money on bombs and tanks and corporate tax breaks and put that into our schools we might not have so many dumb people. And, once educated, they're probably decide not to have so many kids. But there's probably some Republican here that's going to attack me for thinking public school funding is more important than corporate profits and bombs.

Don't know if you missed it, kaab, but Prozac has already voiced the intention to do exactly that. While I disagree that it would be a good idea, I can appreciate the sentiment. Please keep your awesome advice to yourself.

Strange example, considering we're working really hard at doing exactly that. And we're really close to succeeding, too.

Very true. Also, I'd really like to squash something here: the original post seems to imply that smart people have smart children 100% of the time, when in fact, sometimes smart people have autistic, depressed or otherwise mentally disabled children, and most of the time, statistically, children's intelligence reverts to the mean. That's just based on people who submit to IQ testing, the value of which is dubious, and in the context of eugenics would be flat-out threatening to any cultural minority.

That's interesting as I have aspergers (on the autism spectrum) and have severe depression, but my IQ has been tested as "very superior."

Like intelligence, the ability to express oneself clearly is not closely tied to heredity.

A cigar for the gun freak in the first row!