Tereza—this is a fascinating and important topic; thanks for sharing your research and insights.
I like that such research would be relevant whether we have really bad outcomes (e.g. need to survive global catastrophes) or really good outcomes (e.g. we develop the capacity to colonize Mars and build ‘generation ships’ for interstellar exploration).
On the topic of ‘love and belonging needs’, do you have any views on ways we might need to nudge and update our social norms around dating, mating, sex, and relationships, to handle long-term living in confined spaces? For example, single-sex or mixed-sex groups? Monogamy or polyamory or open relationships? Pro-jealousy ‘mate guarding’ norms or anti-jealousy ‘violence minimization’ norms? Straight vs. gay vs. bisexual vs. pansexual orientations?
Thanks for raising an important question Goeffrey. I am not an expert on this topic and don’t feel qualified to comment, except that our norms are obviously far from a global optimum. I think this underscores a more significant point which is that any such project should have an interdisciplinary team behind it, including at least consulting experts on topics such as sexuality. Another approach that has been floated for civilizational shelters in particular is that it might make sense to directly select a group to avoid issues such as harassment, for instance, a carefully selected single-sex group (i.e. likely a female group).
Tereza—thanks for your reply. I agree that an interdisciplinary team would be great to address such a diverse set of issues! (Basically any topic worth studying in human biology, culture, and civilization will be relevant somehow to human life in confined environments.)
I guess one key contextual variable is whether we’re talking about relatively ‘short-term’ missions (e.g. weeks to months, such as rocket trips to build a moon base), or relatively ‘long-term’ missions (e.g. sheltering underground for a few decades after a nuclear war, building a mars colony for a few years, or undertaking a ‘generation-ship’ voyage to another star system). For the short-term missions, it might be prudent to minimize sexual contact, relationships, and reproduction, to reduce friction and promote mission focus. But for longer-term missions (decades or generations), it would be necessary to encourage relationship formation, parenting, etc.
Hello Geoffrey, I apologise for the delayed response; I’ve been travelling recently, but responding to your comment has been on my mind.
You bring up some insightful points that align with my current findings. I agree that the distinction between short-term and long-term missions is crucial when discussing interpersonal relationships in confined environments.
For the short-term three-month confinement project I’ve been planning, I’ve chosen to minimise the emphasis on encouraging sexual contact. This approach is taken primarily to maintain the focus on the mission objectives. Nevertheless, the provision of private single bedrooms allows for individual personal needs to be met, if desired.
As you pointed out, when it comes to long-term missions—extending over decades or even generations—the equation changes significantly. It would be necessary to consider relationship dynamics amongst the adult crew and the unique requirements and complexities of raising children in such an environment. This introduces a whole new set of variables to consider, including education, socialisation, and overall development from infancy to adulthood.
Thanks again for your comment, I would be happy to chat more about the topic if you felt like it! Tereza
Tereza—this is a fascinating and important topic; thanks for sharing your research and insights.
I like that such research would be relevant whether we have really bad outcomes (e.g. need to survive global catastrophes) or really good outcomes (e.g. we develop the capacity to colonize Mars and build ‘generation ships’ for interstellar exploration).
On the topic of ‘love and belonging needs’, do you have any views on ways we might need to nudge and update our social norms around dating, mating, sex, and relationships, to handle long-term living in confined spaces? For example, single-sex or mixed-sex groups? Monogamy or polyamory or open relationships? Pro-jealousy ‘mate guarding’ norms or anti-jealousy ‘violence minimization’ norms? Straight vs. gay vs. bisexual vs. pansexual orientations?
Thanks for raising an important question Goeffrey. I am not an expert on this topic and don’t feel qualified to comment, except that our norms are obviously far from a global optimum. I think this underscores a more significant point which is that any such project should have an interdisciplinary team behind it, including at least consulting experts on topics such as sexuality. Another approach that has been floated for civilizational shelters in particular is that it might make sense to directly select a group to avoid issues such as harassment, for instance, a carefully selected single-sex group (i.e. likely a female group).
Tereza—thanks for your reply. I agree that an interdisciplinary team would be great to address such a diverse set of issues! (Basically any topic worth studying in human biology, culture, and civilization will be relevant somehow to human life in confined environments.)
I guess one key contextual variable is whether we’re talking about relatively ‘short-term’ missions (e.g. weeks to months, such as rocket trips to build a moon base), or relatively ‘long-term’ missions (e.g. sheltering underground for a few decades after a nuclear war, building a mars colony for a few years, or undertaking a ‘generation-ship’ voyage to another star system). For the short-term missions, it might be prudent to minimize sexual contact, relationships, and reproduction, to reduce friction and promote mission focus. But for longer-term missions (decades or generations), it would be necessary to encourage relationship formation, parenting, etc.
Hello Geoffrey,
I apologise for the delayed response; I’ve been travelling recently, but responding to your comment has been on my mind.
You bring up some insightful points that align with my current findings. I agree that the distinction between short-term and long-term missions is crucial when discussing interpersonal relationships in confined environments.
For the short-term three-month confinement project I’ve been planning, I’ve chosen to minimise the emphasis on encouraging sexual contact. This approach is taken primarily to maintain the focus on the mission objectives. Nevertheless, the provision of private single bedrooms allows for individual personal needs to be met, if desired.
As you pointed out, when it comes to long-term missions—extending over decades or even generations—the equation changes significantly. It would be necessary to consider relationship dynamics amongst the adult crew and the unique requirements and complexities of raising children in such an environment. This introduces a whole new set of variables to consider, including education, socialisation, and overall development from infancy to adulthood.
Thanks again for your comment, I would be happy to chat more about the topic if you felt like it!
Tereza