Text 6388, 85 rader
Skriven 2006-08-14 21:24:00 av Robert E Starr JR (6780.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Alien-Kids on B5 (Was
=================================
* * * This message was from Wendy of NJ to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <4a42e2d2o15u501b0k2ee6sbjbj47l6our@4ax.com>
@REPLY:
<c1iDg.369706$iF6.241132@pd7tw2no><0001HW.C1034D29018CE09DF0407530@news.verizon.net><Xns981D646414471methuselahaltgeekor

On 14 Aug 2006 09:13:36 -0700, "Joseph DeMartino"
<jdemarti@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Stefan wrote:
>
>> Is there any JMS-statement about the fact of the very minor appearances
>> of
>> Alien- / Kids at all?
>
>Well, JMS did famously decree that there would be "no cute kids or
>robots" among the regulars, and the nature of the outpost and the risks
>involved would militate against most permanent residents wanting to
>bring their kids.  (The four previous stations had been destroyed by
>sabotage, or mysteriously.  This one was being cobbled together on a
>fraction of the budget.  Odds makers were giving 500-to-1 against the
>place lasting the first year - not someplace you'd want to raise a
>family.)
>
>Also the nature of the stories (except when they specifically
>*required* a child, as in "Believers") tended not to be the sort that
>kids would be involved in, hence limiting the need for kid guest stars.
>
>
>Wendy does have a point about Downbelow, but even there the case is not
>as clear as it might seem.  I don't believe those families who were
>"emigrating for a better life" were emigrating *to* B5 as a permanent
>home except in very rare cases.  I think it was a stop on their way to
>someplace else, and they ended up stuck there for other reasons.  Most
>of the Lurker's would be single adults looking for work. 

Well, I don't recall seeing a demographic breakdown of lurkers, so I
don't agree with that statement. They may have been single when they
got there, but I'll bet some of them "hook up".

> Given that it
>is the 23rd century I doubt that birth control will really be an issue.

I'm much more skeptical about that than you are, obviously. And until
we've heard from the Source about this, it's an open issue as far as
I'm concerned.

> I would expect "permanent" implants would do the job, which could be
>turned off when people decide they want to conceive, so it likely
>wouldn't be an issue - and its lack would not produced a population
>explosion and resulting army of toddlers in downbelow.  (Given that the
>station has only been on-line from 1 to 6 years during the main thread
>of the show, such kids as *might* have been conceived in Downbelow
>would have been babes in arms through grade-school age, and probably
>largely kept off the "streets") 

But we're also in a colonization period, following a big war. I
thought the powers that be WANT a lot of breeding to go on during such
times as these.

>
>Regards, 
>
>Joe
>

Not all lurkers were human, though humans made up the greater portion
of them. And considering the CURRENT availablilty and "cheapness" of
birth control NOW, and how many of the underpriviledged (and not-so
underpriviledged) do not avail themselves of birth control - I really
tend to doubt that the people who comprise lurkers would be
responsible enough to remember to use it, or to necessarily care to
take proper precautions with casual encounters.

It's a nice theory that we'd have perfected birth control by then, but
most human nature didn't change in the intervening years, so why
should this be any different?

-Wendy (unexpected grandmother) Sheridan
                                                                               

--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)