Conference quark::mennotes-v1

Insufficient data, Captain.  What is the population density?  What is the
birth rate, death rate, average lifespan?  What is the society's attitude
towards "females"?  What is their overall level of aggression?  How much
food is available to the average person?  Are there great deviations from
the norm in any of these statistics in particular areas?  What is the
society's attitude (emotionally and physically) towards the reproductive act?
What is the pregnancy rate per female per year and per reproductive act?  Is
contraception widely available and in use?  Who typically does the child
rearing?

I'm sure there's a lot more data that I haven't thought of so far which would
be important.  The result could range from "no problem" to "these people are
about to kill themselves off".

					Steve

    
    oooo, trick question.
    
    The ship's computer is summoned....
    
    "computer....?"
    
    "working...." she drones.
    
    "give me all history, background, definition, and etymology of the
    term, 'pro-life'"....
    
    ......
    
    -Jody
    

    "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it...."

    Steve, Jody, Daniel,

    This type of question must be "nebulous"...  I am looking for Extrapolation,
    not Interpolation.  Yes Jody, your answer depends on what _you_ mean by
    that term.  If Steve can extrapolate the answers his own questions...

    Let's have some fun with this one and at the same time learn something!

    Don

    Well, you see, Don, it just looks like a self-fulfilling prophesy from
    here...
    
    If *everybody* on this new planet were, indeed, pro-life, then the
    entire crux of today's controversies would not be present.  The people
    would all be working from the same basic premise.  It sort of follows
    that the divisiveness of the issue on our little corner of the universe
    wouldn't exist....

    
    -1 Yup.
    
      
      I suspect they would all be naturalists and environmentalists..
    
    David

    I was confused at first but you're trying to say that this is a society
    which doesn't allow abortions?
    
    There are such cultures on Earth, you know.
    
    Ray

Re: .4

Sorry, you don't provide enough background for any kind of meaningful
"extrapolation".  You may as well have stipulated that all of the people
on this planet had blue eyes.

			Steve

 It could be said with equal validity that you merely lack the imagination
required for "meaningful extrapolation."

    I shouldn't eat cold pizza for breakfast...

.5> If *everybody* on this new planet were, indeed, pro-life, then the
.5> entire crux of today's controversies would not be present.

    Daniel, that's a pretty strong statement!  What I hear you saying is that
    if we were to resolve this one issue on our Earth then we would no longer
    have any conflict between Men and Women?  Does/Would Planet PL have any
    conflicts?

.5> The people would all be working from the same basic premise.

    The people would all be working from _a_ same basic premise...

.6> I suspect they would all be naturalists and environmentalists..
    
    David, why is that?  To be Pro-Life is to be a naturalist and an
    environmentalist?

.7> I was confused at first but you're trying to say that this is a society
.7> which doesn't allow abortions?
    
    Ray, all I said was "that ALL the Humans of Planet PL are what we presently
    describe as being Pro-Life"...  Now, what are you trying to say - to be
    Pro-Life means _society_ doesn't allow abortions?  Can one be Pro-Life and
    still live with the fact that abortion may be a Constitutional Right?

.8> Sorry, you don't provide enough background for any kind of meaningful
.8> "extrapolation".

    And yet you posed excellent questions in .1 - Why can't you take a shot at
    answering some of them?

    
    
    Soule,
    
    
     True. I guess I read into your description a certain Utopian
    interpretation. I think that in Utopia nobody would rape or have
    an unwanted, poorly timed, pregnancy.  Probably a planet that is in
    harmony with the " Greater power", kind of a garden of Eden, minus
    that damn apple tree, of course. :-)  Not like our earthly naturalist
    or environmentalist, not that they are all that bad either  My SO is
    a graduate of Colorado college, and is an  Env/nat type, and well, she
    is pretty darn neat :-)
    
    David
    
    

    .10
    
    When I said "controversies" I meant the controversies that arise over
    the pro-choice and pro-life schism...
    
    ...this is *not* to say that people would get along on other issues,
    however.
    
    Daniel

    "What we presently describe as Pro-Life" spans a pretty wide segment of
    beliefs, I think, even on the narrow topic of abortion. Some
    self-described pro-lifers oppose all abortions, others consider
    abortion permissible to save the life of the mother, and some would add
    a few other things to the list. (And, of course, a person who's
    pregnant and doesn't want to be, however pro-life her beliefs, might
    feel differently about it when it's happening to _her_.)
    
    So, given that even within the "Pro-Life" camp, all is not in complete
    accord, I would expect this society to have similar arguments to our
    own about just how to legislate abortions; I'd expect no provision for
    abortion on demand, but the debates over how to prevent unwanted
    pregnancies in the first place, whether to permit abortions under any
    circumstances, and how to decide whether individual cases qualify,
    might well be just as heated as the ones on Planet E.
    
    Now, it _could_ be that this society's Pro-Life stance would take the
    form of a "Pro-Child" attitude, where all pregnancies would be greeted
    with the joy of the entire community, regardless of the circumstances
    of conception and the health or fitness of the mother (and possibly in
    which the raising of children is done by the community, never solely by
    its biological parents); or it might be at a different extreme,
    avoiding any question of unwanted pregnancies by implanting
    birth-control devices in all children before puberty, to be removed
    only when individuals have been approved for parenthood. In the latter
    case, having an "unofficial" child might result in the most severe
    penalties for the parents, to dissuade others from similar steps.
    
    However, either of those extremes would seem to demand a few more
    fundamental changes in human society than simply a universal "Pro-Life
    with regard to the unborn" attitude. If PL-as-we-know-it is the only
    difference, I'd really expect Planet PL's society to be very much like
    Earth's.
    
    Now, if you push the definition of "Pro-Life" a bit farther, you could
    have a completely different picture. What if "Pro-Life" means that all
    living things are just as important as humans, and any taking of life
    was considered wrong? Fruits could be eaten, since that doesn't kill
    the plant, but no meat would be taken, nor living trees felled for wood
    or fuel. And since the people would want to avoid depriving other
    living things of their habitat - just as sure a means of killing them
    as bashing them over the head - they'd probably maintain a very small
    population. (They _might_ scavenge, but only if there weren't enough
    other scavengers to utilize the carrion.) War would be unheard of, as
    the most devout believers would simply prefer to be killed than to take
    another life. (This does not mean they would be completely helpless in
    the face of less picky life forms; they might, for example, have no
    compunction about fooling enemies into firing on each other...)
    
    Lessee, what other plot from half-a-dozen science fiction stories can I
    work into this? Hmmm. Perhaps the people of this planet consider every
    living thing to be akin and important, but also considering that - as
    we can easily observe from watching the animals around us - death is a
    part of life, and not to be shunned. This would be the "Live fast and
    joyously, and, dying, replenish the earth" crowd. [But this is a far,
    far cry from "what we presently describe as Pro-Life," so I shan't
    pursue this line of thought any farther.]
    
    Speculation 'R' us,
    -b

    re.0 Ever been to Utah?

    
    The history of the planet is that there was once a terrible
    environmental cataclysm.  Few survived, animal or human.  The humans
    generated, from this, a mythos and belief system consistent with the
    event - there was a pantheon of deities who nourished life, and a
    pantheon that destroyed it.  Each must be worshipped at different
    times.  Sacrifice was not required, but attendance to the balance of
    good and bad, law and chaos, was needed in order to find meaning and
    cause in everyday life.  Thousands of years pass, technology grows, and
    people learn that life is balance - life is given, and taken away, and
    that this is but one plane of existence among many (the eventual plane
    being the site of the homes of the pantheons they worship).
    
    With every death, large or small - every grain of rice, every human
    life, every tumor, every strip of bacon, every piece of fruit, every
    fly or gnat swatted, there is the requirement that the person be
    *present* to what is happening.  There is the savoring of the food. 
    And there is the prayer of apology for the slaughtered or swatted 
    animal.   There is the apology at the removal of a tumor, at every
    mercykilling or abortion - for some portion of life is being removed,
    whether sentient or nonsentient.  There is the acknowledgment that ALL
    life is valuable, but that balance and rightness in the timing of life
    must be sought - the engenderment of appropriate new life, the taking
    of older life when the quality is gone, the removal of gangrenous or
    cancerous parts that no longer serve their purpose and threaten the
    whole.  Nothing is cosmetic or unreasoned, nothing is done without
    intent and presence, and nothing is held out of proportion - all flows
    within the purpose of life, the meaning of life, and with the full
    acknowledgment that WE are the choosers - and that the choosing is NO
    burden, but is a freedom and a responsibility - not to be taken lightly
    - nor to be taken too harshly.  Judgment does not fall, as all act in
    accordance with their values, their balance - all agree that what the
    individual finds within their integrity is valuable - is acknowledged
    as what is right.  The group finds integrity of life through the acts
    of the individuals that comprise it, and the prayers of thanks and
    forgiveness and acknowledgment serve to assist in choosing well, and
    wisely, what occurs each moment, each day - all being present to the
    plane we are on, and the plane we are seeking - the existence we all
    choose to be part of and act in and around.  Our worship strengthens
    our integrity as we speak what we feel whether in a temple or church or
    in private, seeking sense in what we feel and know as right, and
    receiving support, caring, love, and nurturing from the people we share
    our world with....
    
    -Jody
    

    >>WE are the choosers - and that the choosing is NO
    >>burden, but is a freedom and a responsibility - not to be taken lightly
    >>- nor to be taken too harshly.

    I'd posit that these attitudes towards "choosing" - one being that
    it's a burden, the other that it's a freedom - do not necessarily
    represent a dichotomy; that they can, do, and should naturally
    often coexist in any "responsible" society.
    
    So what, right?  I don't know.
    Di

       On further examination it was discovered that Planet PL had once
       been a thriving planet but the culture was now near dead due to
       genetic deterioration of the population.

       It seems that the culture went through a dark period where anyone
       who wasn't blue/green eyed and blonde were executed after being
       declared diabolical.  Presently the execution rule is applied only
       to homosexuals or dissidents.

       As the society became more and more intolerant, the battle cry
       became "Save the Children" under the guise that the next generation
       would save the Planet.  Unfortunately, after DNA testing the
       children were found to be too close, genetically, to mate but it
       didn't matter as most were sterile anyway.

       The leaders of the Planet begged the crew members to help by
       donating their time and bodies to inject the essential new 'blood'
       into their society.

       The exploration team declined saying the they felt it was "God's will
       that the Planet PL die."

    
    
    
    > declined saying " It was Gods will that planet Pl die"
    
     But then God spoke up and said " Some people say stupid things in my
    name, all I want from you Pl'ers is for you to follow the natural rules
    of a succesful life, oh and one other thing, " do unto others as you
    would have them do to you." Which would no doubt include not over
    simplyfing(sp) things :-) :-)
    
    David

    	Just as in many insects (bees, for example) the external
    environment or pheromones controls the ratio of male to female
    children. In bees, males are only produced at the approach of the
    swarming season, for example.
    
    	In this particular society, at about one million females on the
    planet the female pheronome level is high enough to prevent any more
    female children being born. This effectively stabilises the number of
    females on the planet at about a million. This in turn (given the
    number of children a woman can produce in a lifetime) effectively
    limits the planetary population to around ten million.
    
    	Abortion for any reason is unthinkable, because the aborted child
    just might have been a desirable female. There is no constitutional
    rights issue, just as there is no U.S. constitutional right to
    levitate.
    
    	Given the limited world population there has never been sufficient
    "critical mass" for technology to develop, and this includes medical
    technology, so they are quite unaware of the reason for their stable
    population.
    
    	The arrival of the spaceship and the analysis of the situation
    changes all this. The rich can now afford to ensure that their women
    conceive in pheronome-reduced environments, and.....

.11> I think that in Utopia nobody would rape or have an unwanted, poorly timed
.11> pregnancy.  Probably a planet that is in harmony with the " Greater power",
.11> kind of a garden of Eden,

     David, could you expound on this theme?  If the Planet PL is indeed 
     Utopian, how did it get that way?  Is it the case on Planet PL that
     nobody rapes or that nobody will _be_ raped?
    
.13> "What we presently describe as Pro-Life" spans a pretty wide segment of
.13> beliefs, I think,

     Elizabeth, it's always a pleasure to read your thoughts... I look forward
     to someday reading your treatise titled "Duct Tape as a Babysitting Aid",
     :^).  Anyway, you pretty much nailed down the reason for this exercise.

     I wonder if you might choose one of your "speculations" (_your_ favorite?)
     and develop it some more...  What does Pro-Life mean to you?

.14> re.0 Ever been to Utah?

     No, but if you see some correlation between Utah and the Planet PL, I 
     would like you to tell us about it...

.15> Jody, WOW!  You certainly know how to play this game!  That had to be
     one of the best examples of Hope, Heart, and Mind all firing at the same
     time, but, I have come to expect that from you...

.15> Nothing is cosmetic or unreasoned, nothing is done without intent and 
.15> presence, and nothing is held out of proportion - 

     Yup, it would seem there was NO serendipity on the Planet PL...

     I got the sense that you described _your_ Utopia.  Would David's and
     Elibabeth's Utopias be similar?  I wonder if you might go into some more
     detail around the Educational System(s) of the Planet PL...
    
.16> So what, right?  I don't know.

     Di, actually you've touched on something interesting... Can one reach
     Utopia without conflict?  Is there conflict in Utopia?  Take away the
     Pro-Life conflict (Planet PL), what conflicts remain?     

.17> Patrick, most interesting!  What you're saying is that being Pro-Life led
     to genetic engineering for genetic perfection but failing that there was
     no turning back, hence, extinction?  Hmmmm...

  Folks, there is one aspect to this story which no one has yet developed but
  that is understandable since I may have given away too much in .0 - Results
  so far have been better than expected!  Has anyone gained any insight about
  this process which can be shared?

    
    
    > how did it get this way
    
    They shot all their lawyers, politicians, and extremist on both sides
    :-)
    
    > that nobody rapes or that nobody will be raped
    
       On this planet they found a book that had some really good rules to
    live by.. The most important rule( they followed it religiously) was
    the rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, this
    combined with a self awareness seminar that all " Pt's" had to attend,
    eveentually led everyone to be sensitive to others. Thus, rape was not
    committed because everybody knew how it made someone feel, and it was
    not a nice feeling..
    
    David
      

re: .20
    
>.15> Jody, WOW!  You certainly know how to play this game!  That had to be
>     one of the best examples of Hope, Heart, and Mind all firing at the same
>     time, but, I have come to expect that from you...
    
    Thank you.  I always have this love/hate relationship with setting
    dangerous precedences for myself!

>.15> Nothing is cosmetic or unreasoned, nothing is done without intent and 
>.15> presence, and nothing is held out of proportion - 
>     Yup, it would seem there was NO serendipity on the Planet PL...
    
    I guess there is some serendipity, there are some surprises, and how to
    handle them arises out of the rightness of people responding naturally
    and from their respect for life....

>>     I got the sense that you described _your_ Utopia.  Would David's and
>>     Elibabeth's Utopias be similar?  I wonder if you might go into some more
>>     detail around the Educational System(s) of the Planet PL...
    
    The educational system of PL is founded in developing a person's sense
    of self, sense of appropriate boundaries, ability to speak their belief
    and their rights and expectation that their needs will be heard and
    respected, and a balance between art, technology, and
    religion/spirituality.
    
    Elders of the community who are respected are the primary teachers - it
    is a reward to be made a teacher, and they are supported financially
    and revered by the community - they take it very seriously, and it
    becomes a part of them that is available all the time - this teaching
    and caring commitment to nurturing people around them.  Also, new
    graduates are encouraged to support the teaching system by entering to
    express what their careers are like, new insights they have, and any
    new techologies or spiritual expressions they have developed.  Each
    person lectures at least once in the school system after graduation,
    and they are glad to do so - it is a welcome opportunity.
    

>  Folks, there is one aspect to this story which no one has yet developed but
>  that is understandable since I may have given away too much in .0 - Results
>  so far have been better than expected!  Has anyone gained any insight about
>  this process which can be shared?
    
    
    I don't know anything about this aspect, but the more you hint about
    having a preconceived notion of what this should look like the less I
    want to play because the more I get attached to "having to have the
    right answer and say what you feel is the missing piece".....
    
    -Jody

    
    
    Jody,
    
     How do they know right from wrong?
    
    David

.22> but the more you hint about having a preconceived notion of what this
.22> should look like the less I want to play because the more I get attached
.22> to "having to have the right answer and say what you feel is the missing
.22> piece".....

     That hurts, but, for me to deny a preconceived notion would be absolutely
     ludicrous...  What did I do by entering .0?  For some, I set up a 
     playground, for others I set up a battlefield but whatever the environment,
     anyone who plays the game comes away a winner.  I have judged _all_
     replies to be excellent, so much so, that I have wanted more from everyone.
     Is there a "right answer"?  Well, I have one that seems "right" for me.
     You have one that seems "right" for you.  Do we have any common ground or
     does there seem to be any "universal truth" starting to emerge?  You tell
     me...  One thing is for sure - to participate in this string requires
     imagination and creativity (the same stuff needed to get this company back
     to profitability).  What I have seen so far leads me to believe we are
     gonna turn things around...

     Don

    
    thanks, I feel better after hearing that....I guess whenever there's
    supposed to be one right answer (which I feared), I always feel stupid
    if I don't get it.  that's one of *my* squishy spots.
    
    As for how do they know right and wrong?  as long as they follow the
    tenets in my first description, it will become apparent what is right
    and wrong.
    
    -Jody
    

    
>>    Elders of the community who are respected are the primary teachers - it
>>    is a reward to be made a teacher, and they are supported financially
>>    and revered by the community - they take it very seriously, and it

	I would imagine that once you introduce selectively apportioned
	financial rewards, you introduce competition, and thus conflict.
	But, it's pretty difficult for me to conceptualize a "Utopian"
	society anyways, as by its very name, it implies the existence
	of opposing negative forces.

	Di

    Hey, wuddya know?  I finally got around to reading VENUS PLUS X, by
    Theodore Sturgeon, published 1960, and it happens to take place on
    Planet PL (except he calls it "Ledom").  To quote one of the
    inhabitants, when asked about "unwanted children":
    
    	"I didn't think you could shock me, but you did. I thought that
    	after the amount of research I've done, I was proof against it,
    	but I guess I never expected to stand here in the middle of Ledom
    	and try to engage my mind with the concept of an _unwanted_ child."
    
    The way Sturgeon did it was to engineer a society of literal
    hermaphrodites, this being an efficient way of eliminating sexism and
    the patriarchal (or, as Sturgeon calls it, "patrist") power structure.
    Rather than constructing some omnipotent male God, this society
    worships their own children.  The full bisexual variety of sexual
    behavior is warmly condoned.
    
    Obviously the novel is highly recommended to MENNOTES readers.
    
    Ray

Re: .27

I've been trying to locate a copy of that book for a long time; my wife was
sure she had it, but can't find it. 

			Steve

I would also recommend "Always Coming Home" by Ursula K. LeGuin for a detailed
description of a society that values life.

Karl