I have no problem with a subscription based/. (so long as it can still be got for free). I would pay $5 to see ad-free/. I might even pay more. We'll see how long 1000 pages lasts. However, I do not like doing business with PayPal. Please, ditch PayPal and give me an alternative!
I am glad to note that someone else notice the appearance of Agent Elrond:
Mister Baggins... you lead two lives. In one, you are Frodo Baggins, an unassuming little hobbit. In the other, you are the Ringbearer. One of these lives has no future...
Humans evolved to lose their hair. This is because it simply wasn't necessary any more once they figured out how to use animal skins to keep warm. The appendix is another good example of modern evolution. Since humans for the most part do not ingest toxins frequently (due to the cooking process), we simply don't need it so it's disappearing.
AKH!! NO! WRONG!!
I'm sorry, that was terribly rude. But I am going to leave it, because what you say is simply not factually correct.
First off, natural selection does not work by picking good traits and strengthening them, or by eliminating unecessary traits. There is only one directive to natural selection: those that breed pass on traits. Hair was lost not because it was unecessary, but because less hair humans bred more. This might be due to hairy people dying of heat exhaustion, or simply women finding less hair more attractive. Who knows.
Secondly, the appendix may be disappearing (I honestly don't know... it is impossible to measure the size of the appendix on a timescale that means anything in terms of evolution), but if it is, it is only because the appendix is an unfit selective trait. I can see how this is possible, as people who die of appendicitus cannot reproduce after they die. However, I see the appendix as a neutral trait, and it is likely to remain for a very long time.
So what good traits are being encouraged by evolution? I think that's tough to say, but I think it's pretty evident that we are becoming smarter as a species (which is rather well documented). While on a micro-socialogical level this may not seem too logically (since stupid people tend to breed prolifically), on a macro-socialogical level it makes sense. Stupid people tend to have higher mortality rates so it would appear that while birth rates may be higher amoungst stupid people, success rate is far greater upon intellegent people.
I would like to postulate that the human species is "getting smarter" not because of natural seclection, but because of one adaptive trait. Yes, one trait is all that is allowing people to "get smarter." What is that trait you ask?
CULTURE
Culture is the ability to learn behavior, rather then rely on instinct alone.
Culture allows us adapt to our environment, and adapt our environment to ourselves.
Culture is the trait that allowed humans to become just about he most ubiquitos species on the entire planet.
And remember, natural selection does not select for positive traits, but against negative traits (in a particulare niche -- see the discussion on
SCA
(DISCLAIMER: I am trying to remain neutral here, please don't flame me for gay bashing or being a bleeding heart liberal.)
Certainly, genetic homosexuality would be selected against by natural selection.
At the same time, the greatest adaptive trait that HUMANS have over other species is CULTURE. Culture is a set of learned behaviors. Cultural traits that are maladaptive cease to exist. Traits that are adaptive are passed on. That means adaptive for society, not the idividual, as biological natural selection would assume.
It is possible that cultural homosexuality is, in fact, adaptive. To make the argument, I am going to bring up another scenario:
Let us assume that biological selection is the only force determining traits. In that situation, any person would want to have as many children as possible, thus increasing the chance that their children will survive to pass on their genes. This would lead to overpopulation very quickly, then the population would stabilize through time.
However, there is a very high correlation between cultures with very low protien diets and long post-partem sex taboos (no sex for at least one year after giving birth). In a purly biologically driven system of natural selection, you would expect mothers to give birth as often as possible, then have the men go out and kill/steal/coerce as many animals from neighbors as possible to feed the children. The taboo likely developed as a societal restraint on over taxing the resources available for the good of the community.
Cultural homosexuality could very well have similar root. Not having children keeps the population down, thus reducing the risk of overpopulation.
(This explaination is based on the theory of cultural ecology, i.e. culture adapts to its environment. It has limited application, especially in modernized societies. I am just tossing it out as a theory -- I don't particularly believe it myself, so take it for what it is worth: yet another perspective to add to the tapestry of lively, gentlemenly debate.)
To continue the other respose, it could also be that a heterozygous homosexual/non-homosexual allele combination could have partial expression, or even more likely, homosexuality (if, indeed genetic -- I have no opion one way or the other, not enough knowledge to make any kind of judgement) is a polygenetic trait, i.e. several genes determine sexuality, not just one.
Boy, I am having to dig up some OLD notes for this discussion ^_^
Basically, I completely agree with your post, however, there is a slight factual error, namely that Sickle-Cell Anemia is caused by an "unlikely mutation."
Let us say that the gene that causes Sickle-Cell Anemia (SCA) is S, and that the lack of that gene is A. Any given person gets one allele (the varient of the gene that causes or does not cause SCA) from each of their parents, with the four following genotypes:
AA, no expression of SCA
SS, complete expression of SCA
AS or SA, partial expression of SCA
In other words, you do not get full-blown SCA unless you inherit the S allele from both parents. However, if you inherit the S allele from only one parent, then you are affected by SCA to some extent. Generally, there are enough healthy cells in the body to prevent the partial expression from being a problem. In addition, blood cells affected by SCA are virtually immune to Malaria, thus people with a partial expression of the gene are less likely to get Malaria.
In regions where Malaria is a problem, natural selection favors a parial expression of the gene. Those born without it die of Malaria and those born with the full expression of the gene die of SCA.
In fact the gene that causes SCA is not that rare, as you state, it is quite common in Malarial regions. There are as many people born in those regions with SCA as not. It is not rare, and is not caused by an "unlikely mutation." SCA is rather uncommon in regions where Malaria is not a problem and there are few breeding people from Malarial regions (i.e. the "Western World"), but (to beat a dead horse) it is quite common in regions where Malaria is also a common problem.
Yes, but the point is that he wouldn't be accepting donations, he would be providing a service at a nominal cost. An ad-free version of the site would be a service in the same way that MegaTokyo swag are merchandise. Hell, I would love a t-shirt, but between my fencing habit and addiction to the works of Hayao Miyazaki (pardon the spelling), I have only my $0.02. Still, if he would take it, Piro is welcome to it.
Another feasable model that I have seen is what Pete Abrams at sluggy.com has started doing. In addition to selling books, prints, posters, &c., he has an "ad free" subscription service. The basic theory is that one sends in 10 bucks and no longer has to deal with banner adds. Basically, there is no fundamental change in the site from the user perspective (other than the lack of banners, and one or two other small perks), and it basically amounts to a donation, but there is something tangible in return. For those that don't want to pay, Sluggy is still free, only there are annoying ads at the top of the page.
Re:They already have pasta and cheese
on
The Future of MREs
·
· Score: 1
karma > 25
automatic +2 bonus
i often forget to turn it off
Re:They already have pasta and cheese
on
The Future of MREs
·
· Score: 2
On 11 Sept., I was in the mountains, trying to get to an arch site. Ham slice for lunch. We got down and back to civilization about three days later. I hadn't heard a thing about the World Trade Centers or the Pentagon until I got home. I have this feeling that this is going to be one of the defining moments in American History, y'know, the kind where your kids will expect to hear strories.
"Where were you when the terrorists destroyed the World Trade Centers?"
"Well, son, I was out hiking in the wilderness. One of the longest field days ever. We left at about 4 in the morning, and began to hike. We gained over 3,500 feet over the course of 2 miles, then came down on Liberty Lake. Then--"
"Yeah, I'll bet you were barefoot too. And it was 40 below and snowing. I'm going to go play Final Fantasy LCXII now."
Re:They already have pasta and cheese
on
The Future of MREs
·
· Score: 2
I've never much liked the pasta menus. Ham Slice is one of my favorites, though it does not seem to be on the list. The Grilled Chicken Breast isn't bad either. Anything with rice is to be avoided like the plague. Just my onpinion.
This is another situation where military technology is not just useful to the military. While I agree that way to much money is spent on the military, MREs are usefull to a lot of other folk as well. The firefighters that put out forest/range-land/wild fires during the summer make great use of MREs. I have, on occasion, taken them out into the field with me for several night trips. MREs provide a good number of calories (something like 5-6k per package) at a reasonable cost in mass. On MRE is generally enough for two meals, though only the first one is hot.
I like the analagy. And I do feel sorry for folk who don't like their work. There are times when any job can be a pain (getting up at 5:00 in the morning to drive for two hours to get to a survey location can be frustrating), but the overall job itself is a joy.
I guess I really can not empathize that much, as I have never worked in the "private sector," though I have heard horror stories from contract archaeologists (long hours, little regard for science, no passion for history, &c.).
Unless someone is going to start giving me money while I do whatever the hell I want to do.
What is it that you would do all day, in a perfect world?
I am quite happy with the work that I do (at the moment, seasonal work with the Forest Sevice as an archaeologist, when I get my Masters, hopefully I can get a full time position). I get paid to do what I would willingly do for free, or even pay to do. I love archaeology. I love the fresh air and miles of arch survey. I enjoy the little bit of excavation that I have the opportunity to partake in. I adore the people I have worked for. I take great pleasure in explaining why archaeology and historic preservation are important and dealing with the public.
Your claim that all jobs suck is a terrible generalization in the highest order. Perhaps the problem lies not in the job bering terrible, but in your ability to choose the field that you work in. I am honestly sorry that you do not enjoy the work that you have chosen to do. My feeling is that one should always to work that they enjoy. If the work is not pleasing to a person, then find something else to do and let some one who wants to do it, do it.
On the other hand, if you are in it for the money, or the power, or the reputation alone, then you have no right to complain. You want huge amounts of money? Fine, you are going to have to do something you don't like to sate your greed. Power? Again, you are going to have to do unpleasant things, or stop you quest for power. If your goal is simply to take pleasure in life, find a job that you actually like doing, no matter the pay (almost any professional field will pay a living wage, at the very least), then there is something that you can do in the world that will fufill those needs.
We live in a world of our own making. We have power over our actions and our own ability to take pleasure in anything that is put before us. Ultimatly, it is your choice to dislike where you work. However, you also have the ability to change that environment. You, much like the fox failing in his attempts to reach the sweet fruit of the grapes on a distant vine, complain without trying alternatives. You waste your time, and the time of all that have to hear your selfish complaining.
Unless you are willing to take responsibilty for you world, shut up and sit down.
I love my job, when I have it. I have, for the last two summers (the rest of the year is reserved for school) worked for the Forest Service as an archaeologist. Plenty of time out in the field, surrounded by sage brush and Great Basin wild rye with no one else for miles. Vistas that go on forever. Warm sun and cool breezes. And a legacy at least 7,000 years of history and culture at my feet.
Then, of course, the hours in the office to report on field findings, but even that has its highlights. Deranged locals complaining about the latest actions of the Feds (some of the rants are really quite enjoyable). The company of several fellow archaeologists. Books detailing every kind of bottle, can, or plate known to man. Information of thousands of sites at my finger tips.
Really, I have a great love of the work that I have had the opportunity to do. It is quite lucky that I have fallen in love with a field that is so open and accepting to undergraduates. Not only do I have a chance to work at a proffesional level, helping to make decisions that acctually affect policy, but I get to prove myself before the people whose jobs I would very much like to have. Verily, I love the work that I do!
Of course, the telephone sanitizers would have to be on the first ship. A new world will need telephone sanitizers long before it needs poets or scientists.
"But I really want to be a... ballerina!",
"Shut up, John, you'll be a cooling system engineer just like your father was, and his father before him, and so on".
This thought intriges(sp?) me.
As the only perspective I have to offer on this subject is the Anthropological one, here's a go:
Much of what we take for granted is a matter of being presented to us by our enculturation into American (or British, or Russian, of !Kung) upbrining. People grow up to be lawers in large part because they are taught that it is important to make money and that lawers make lots of money. Or they are taught that being a lawer is a prestigious occupation. Or they learn that lawers can be of great help to people and that helping people is desireable.
However, a member of the !Kung would not feel that being a lawer is desireable. Certainly, there has been contact with lawers, but can a lawer kill a giraffe (or any form of game)? What good would a lawer be to the !Kung. Therefore, !Kung children are not taught about becoming lawers. They may hear about them in fairy tales, but they will not be taught to want to be lawers.
By the same token, children on a generation ship would likely be taught how to be engineers, specialists in gardening in space, or doctors. Different professions would no doubt have different levels of prestige, but if children are never taught that they could have been lawers, the thought is unlikely to occur.
I know that I am not doing a very good job of explaining myself, but take a moment to stand back from your own culture. Examine why it is that you believe what you believe. Do you worship a god or gods? What profession do you feel is desireable or prestigious? What do you feel makes an atractive mate? What do you consider art? And most importantly, how have these ideals been shaped by your upbringing; by your parents beliefs; your teachers, friends, and relatives beliefs?
Now, if possible, isolate yourself from that upbringing and imagine a universe defined by the inside of a multi-generational colony ship. You would likely be taught that the preservation of the colony is supreme. Your entire ethical and moral systems would revolve around this ideal.
Therefore, I don't think that the children of the children of the children of the first people to board the ship would have any problems continuing on their mission. They are likely to actually be more comfortable in the ship than thei parents, as they would grow up in the environment of the ship, never knowing a sunny day or a spring breeze. The question is: would they want to disembark when they reach their destination?
I can totally feel for you, though I did have the opportunity to watch Farscape for the first time this fall. I ended up working through the fall semester after getting a job with the Forest Service. One of the perks was free housing with cable. Farscape struck me as a rather good show, and I seem to remember advertising for DVDs, though they cost money too... My stratagy: find a rich friend who wishes to buy your friendship, and exploit them. Or you could just work for the government...
Slashdot Mirror
I have no problem with a subscription based /. (so long as it can still be got for free). I would pay $5 to see ad-free /. I might even pay more. We'll see how long 1000 pages lasts. However, I do not like doing business with PayPal. Please, ditch PayPal and give me an alternative!
Ever notice how there's Windows CE, Windows Me, and Windows NT? Put it together, and what do you have?
br CEMeNT
At the Forest Service, the time sheets were named with a long string of meaningless numbers and letters. They were called T'n'A for short
I am glad to note that someone else notice the appearance of Agent Elrond:
Mister Baggins... you lead two lives. In one, you are Frodo Baggins, an unassuming little hobbit. In the other, you are the Ringbearer. One of these lives has no future...
AKH!! NO! WRONG!!
I'm sorry, that was terribly rude. But I am going to leave it, because what you say is simply not factually correct.
First off, natural selection does not work by picking good traits and strengthening them, or by eliminating unecessary traits. There is only one directive to natural selection: those that breed pass on traits. Hair was lost not because it was unecessary, but because less hair humans bred more. This might be due to hairy people dying of heat exhaustion, or simply women finding less hair more attractive. Who knows.
Secondly, the appendix may be disappearing (I honestly don't know... it is impossible to measure the size of the appendix on a timescale that means anything in terms of evolution), but if it is, it is only because the appendix is an unfit selective trait. I can see how this is possible, as people who die of appendicitus cannot reproduce after they die. However, I see the appendix as a neutral trait, and it is likely to remain for a very long time.
I would like to postulate that the human species is "getting smarter" not because of natural seclection, but because of one adaptive trait. Yes, one trait is all that is allowing people to "get smarter." What is that trait you ask?
CULTURE
Culture is the ability to learn behavior, rather then rely on instinct alone.
Culture allows us adapt to our environment, and adapt our environment to ourselves.
Culture is the trait that allowed humans to become just about he most ubiquitos species on the entire planet.
And remember, natural selection does not select for positive traits, but against negative traits (in a particulare niche -- see the discussion on SCA
(DISCLAIMER: I am trying to remain neutral here, please don't flame me for gay bashing or being a bleeding heart liberal.)
Certainly, genetic homosexuality would be selected against by natural selection. At the same time, the greatest adaptive trait that HUMANS have over other species is CULTURE. Culture is a set of learned behaviors. Cultural traits that are maladaptive cease to exist. Traits that are adaptive are passed on. That means adaptive for society, not the idividual, as biological natural selection would assume.
It is possible that cultural homosexuality is, in fact, adaptive. To make the argument, I am going to bring up another scenario:
Let us assume that biological selection is the only force determining traits. In that situation, any person would want to have as many children as possible, thus increasing the chance that their children will survive to pass on their genes. This would lead to overpopulation very quickly, then the population would stabilize through time.
However, there is a very high correlation between cultures with very low protien diets and long post-partem sex taboos (no sex for at least one year after giving birth). In a purly biologically driven system of natural selection, you would expect mothers to give birth as often as possible, then have the men go out and kill/steal/coerce as many animals from neighbors as possible to feed the children. The taboo likely developed as a societal restraint on over taxing the resources available for the good of the community.
Cultural homosexuality could very well have similar root. Not having children keeps the population down, thus reducing the risk of overpopulation.
(This explaination is based on the theory of cultural ecology, i.e. culture adapts to its environment. It has limited application, especially in modernized societies. I am just tossing it out as a theory -- I don't particularly believe it myself, so take it for what it is worth: yet another perspective to add to the tapestry of lively, gentlemenly debate.)
To continue the other respose, it could also be that a heterozygous homosexual/non-homosexual allele combination could have partial expression, or even more likely, homosexuality (if, indeed genetic -- I have no opion one way or the other, not enough knowledge to make any kind of judgement) is a polygenetic trait, i.e. several genes determine sexuality, not just one.
Boy, I am having to dig up some OLD notes for this discussion ^_^
I don't know, he seems to have quite a few to many alleles (SSSCA!?). I think he should be dead already!
Basically, I completely agree with your post, however, there is a slight factual error, namely that Sickle-Cell Anemia is caused by an "unlikely mutation." Let us say that the gene that causes Sickle-Cell Anemia (SCA) is S, and that the lack of that gene is A. Any given person gets one allele (the varient of the gene that causes or does not cause SCA) from each of their parents, with the four following genotypes:
AA, no expression of SCA
SS, complete expression of SCA
AS or SA, partial expression of SCA
In other words, you do not get full-blown SCA unless you inherit the S allele from both parents. However, if you inherit the S allele from only one parent, then you are affected by SCA to some extent. Generally, there are enough healthy cells in the body to prevent the partial expression from being a problem. In addition, blood cells affected by SCA are virtually immune to Malaria, thus people with a partial expression of the gene are less likely to get Malaria.
In regions where Malaria is a problem, natural selection favors a parial expression of the gene. Those born without it die of Malaria and those born with the full expression of the gene die of SCA.
In fact the gene that causes SCA is not that rare, as you state, it is quite common in Malarial regions. There are as many people born in those regions with SCA as not. It is not rare, and is not caused by an "unlikely mutation." SCA is rather uncommon in regions where Malaria is not a problem and there are few breeding people from Malarial regions (i.e. the "Western World"), but (to beat a dead horse) it is quite common in regions where Malaria is also a common problem.
However, the rest of your comment is right on.
Yes, but the point is that he wouldn't be accepting donations, he would be providing a service at a nominal cost. An ad-free version of the site would be a service in the same way that MegaTokyo swag are merchandise. Hell, I would love a t-shirt, but between my fencing habit and addiction to the works of Hayao Miyazaki (pardon the spelling), I have only my $0.02. Still, if he would take it, Piro is welcome to it.
Another feasable model that I have seen is what Pete Abrams at sluggy.com has started doing. In addition to selling books, prints, posters, &c., he has an "ad free" subscription service. The basic theory is that one sends in 10 bucks and no longer has to deal with banner adds. Basically, there is no fundamental change in the site from the user perspective (other than the lack of banners, and one or two other small perks), and it basically amounts to a donation, but there is something tangible in return. For those that don't want to pay, Sluggy is still free, only there are annoying ads at the top of the page.
karma > 25
automatic +2 bonus
i often forget to turn it off
On 11 Sept., I was in the mountains, trying to get to an arch site. Ham slice for lunch. We got down and back to civilization about three days later. I hadn't heard a thing about the World Trade Centers or the Pentagon until I got home. I have this feeling that this is going to be one of the defining moments in American History, y'know, the kind where your kids will expect to hear strories.
"Where were you when the terrorists destroyed the World Trade Centers?"
"Well, son, I was out hiking in the wilderness. One of the longest field days ever. We left at about 4 in the morning, and began to hike. We gained over 3,500 feet over the course of 2 miles, then came down on Liberty Lake. Then--"
"Yeah, I'll bet you were barefoot too. And it was 40 below and snowing. I'm going to go play Final Fantasy LCXII now."
I've never much liked the pasta menus. Ham Slice is one of my favorites, though it does not seem to be on the list. The Grilled Chicken Breast isn't bad either. Anything with rice is to be avoided like the plague. Just my onpinion.
"Meals Ready to Eat"
That's what it means, here I always thought it stood for "Meals Rejected by Ethiopia"
Hell, there's been PB&J since before MREs. Isn't there some kind of B-ration PB&J (I wouldn't eat it, but I'm sure it exists).
This is another situation where military technology is not just useful to the military. While I agree that way to much money is spent on the military, MREs are usefull to a lot of other folk as well. The firefighters that put out forest/range-land/wild fires during the summer make great use of MREs. I have, on occasion, taken them out into the field with me for several night trips. MREs provide a good number of calories (something like 5-6k per package) at a reasonable cost in mass. On MRE is generally enough for two meals, though only the first one is hot.
Number 6 is also quite good :)
I like the analagy. And I do feel sorry for folk who don't like their work. There are times when any job can be a pain (getting up at 5:00 in the morning to drive for two hours to get to a survey location can be frustrating), but the overall job itself is a joy.
I guess I really can not empathize that much, as I have never worked in the "private sector," though I have heard horror stories from contract archaeologists (long hours, little regard for science, no passion for history, &c.).
What is it that you would do all day, in a perfect world?
I am quite happy with the work that I do (at the moment, seasonal work with the Forest Sevice as an archaeologist, when I get my Masters, hopefully I can get a full time position). I get paid to do what I would willingly do for free, or even pay to do. I love archaeology. I love the fresh air and miles of arch survey. I enjoy the little bit of excavation that I have the opportunity to partake in. I adore the people I have worked for. I take great pleasure in explaining why archaeology and historic preservation are important and dealing with the public.
Your claim that all jobs suck is a terrible generalization in the highest order. Perhaps the problem lies not in the job bering terrible, but in your ability to choose the field that you work in. I am honestly sorry that you do not enjoy the work that you have chosen to do. My feeling is that one should always to work that they enjoy. If the work is not pleasing to a person, then find something else to do and let some one who wants to do it, do it.
On the other hand, if you are in it for the money, or the power, or the reputation alone, then you have no right to complain. You want huge amounts of money? Fine, you are going to have to do something you don't like to sate your greed. Power? Again, you are going to have to do unpleasant things, or stop you quest for power. If your goal is simply to take pleasure in life, find a job that you actually like doing, no matter the pay (almost any professional field will pay a living wage, at the very least), then there is something that you can do in the world that will fufill those needs.
We live in a world of our own making. We have power over our actions and our own ability to take pleasure in anything that is put before us. Ultimatly, it is your choice to dislike where you work. However, you also have the ability to change that environment. You, much like the fox failing in his attempts to reach the sweet fruit of the grapes on a distant vine, complain without trying alternatives. You waste your time, and the time of all that have to hear your selfish complaining.
Unless you are willing to take responsibilty for you world, shut up and sit down.
I love my job, when I have it. I have, for the last two summers (the rest of the year is reserved for school) worked for the Forest Service as an archaeologist. Plenty of time out in the field, surrounded by sage brush and Great Basin wild rye with no one else for miles. Vistas that go on forever. Warm sun and cool breezes. And a legacy at least 7,000 years of history and culture at my feet.
Then, of course, the hours in the office to report on field findings, but even that has its highlights. Deranged locals complaining about the latest actions of the Feds (some of the rants are really quite enjoyable). The company of several fellow archaeologists. Books detailing every kind of bottle, can, or plate known to man. Information of thousands of sites at my finger tips.
Really, I have a great love of the work that I have had the opportunity to do. It is quite lucky that I have fallen in love with a field that is so open and accepting to undergraduates. Not only do I have a chance to work at a proffesional level, helping to make decisions that acctually affect policy, but I get to prove myself before the people whose jobs I would very much like to have. Verily, I love the work that I do!
Of course, the telephone sanitizers would have to be on the first ship. A new world will need telephone sanitizers long before it needs poets or scientists.
This thought intriges(sp?) me. As the only perspective I have to offer on this subject is the Anthropological one, here's a go:
Much of what we take for granted is a matter of being presented to us by our enculturation into American (or British, or Russian, of !Kung) upbrining. People grow up to be lawers in large part because they are taught that it is important to make money and that lawers make lots of money. Or they are taught that being a lawer is a prestigious occupation. Or they learn that lawers can be of great help to people and that helping people is desireable.
However, a member of the !Kung would not feel that being a lawer is desireable. Certainly, there has been contact with lawers, but can a lawer kill a giraffe (or any form of game)? What good would a lawer be to the !Kung. Therefore, !Kung children are not taught about becoming lawers. They may hear about them in fairy tales, but they will not be taught to want to be lawers.
By the same token, children on a generation ship would likely be taught how to be engineers, specialists in gardening in space, or doctors. Different professions would no doubt have different levels of prestige, but if children are never taught that they could have been lawers, the thought is unlikely to occur.
I know that I am not doing a very good job of explaining myself, but take a moment to stand back from your own culture. Examine why it is that you believe what you believe. Do you worship a god or gods? What profession do you feel is desireable or prestigious? What do you feel makes an atractive mate? What do you consider art? And most importantly, how have these ideals been shaped by your upbringing; by your parents beliefs; your teachers, friends, and relatives beliefs?
Now, if possible, isolate yourself from that upbringing and imagine a universe defined by the inside of a multi-generational colony ship. You would likely be taught that the preservation of the colony is supreme. Your entire ethical and moral systems would revolve around this ideal.
Therefore, I don't think that the children of the children of the children of the first people to board the ship would have any problems continuing on their mission. They are likely to actually be more comfortable in the ship than thei parents, as they would grow up in the environment of the ship, never knowing a sunny day or a spring breeze. The question is: would they want to disembark when they reach their destination?
ORAC!! Yes, thank you, that's the one. Thank you.
I can totally feel for you, though I did have the opportunity to watch Farscape for the first time this fall. I ended up working through the fall semester after getting a job with the Forest Service. One of the perks was free housing with cable. Farscape struck me as a rather good show, and I seem to remember advertising for DVDs, though they cost money too... My stratagy: find a rich friend who wishes to buy your friendship, and exploit them. Or you could just work for the government...