An all female future..

[Galloism]

There's pretty much no calamity that can possibly befall earth that would make it less hospitable than mars.

Even if we accept the conceit of "need some kind of sealed colony" The resources required to set up a base on mars or the moon as a safe haven in case of global catastrophe would be better spent creating dozens of self-contained biospheres on earth instead.

Shit happens.

[Ashakad]

*laughs in gender neutrality*

But seriosuly, I think this is really quite ridiculous. Women are important but how will we ever claim to have a 'better' future if we're just flipping every issue of today on it's axis? I'd think the reason the men had a higher calorie intake is because they simply thought a bit of hedonistic snacking was available to them. If this was a mission to Mars I could guarantee you that the difference in caloric intake was purely a matter of coincidence. If the men had a lower intake on this mission would they be seen as the gateway to the future? Are we really basing the entire future of mankind on food? There's a lot going on here but I just need to get the point out that sexism isn't going to get us any closer to the stars-if anything, it'd hold us back.
Niw if you were to ask me, I'd say it's time to make some exeptions for space programmes. Should we really insist on money being such an object when it's ;iterally holding us back from the stars? Imagine what we could accomplish with our programs if the only thing to limit us was the availability of resources? Why should we let some societal construct keep us from the glory of the stars? Why should our species be locked on this rock over money and gender and food? Just go!

[Galloism]

*laughs in gender neutrality*

But seriosuly, I think this is really quite ridiculous. Women are important but how will we ever claim to have a 'better' future if we're just flipping every issue of today on it's axis? I'd think the reason the men had a higher calorie intake is because they simply thought a bit of hedonistic snacking was available to them. If this was a mission to Mars I could guarantee you that the difference in caloric intake was purely a matter of coincidence. If the men had a lower intake on this mission would they be seen as the gateway to the future? Are we really basing the entire future of mankind on food? There's a lot going on here but I just need to get the point out that sexism isn't going to get us any closer to the stars-if anything, it'd hold us back.
Niw if you were to ask me, I'd say it's time to make some exeptions for space programmes. Should we really insist on money being such an object when it's ;iterally holding us back from the stars? Imagine what we could accomplish with our programs if the only thing to limit us was the availability of resources? Why should we let some societal construct keep us from the glory of the stars? Why should our species be locked on this rock over money and gender and food? Just go!

Actually, caloric intake is very biological.

Men are supporting a larger body, with a larger brain (brain size and body size are very correlated), and more muscles - both of which are very calorie needy. Useful, but needy.

[Alien Overlord]

All or nothing is the best approach. By that i mean either members of both genders should go, or neither should at all-even if it means our species goes extinct. Why? I'd argue that a species that condemns people to die simply based on their gender should not morally be allowed to survive. Realistically the Human Race is capable of great feats because of it's diversity-including our diversity in that we have two different genders. If we set our minds to sending both genders to space, we will be capable of achieving that goal. I'm certain of it.

[Alien Overlord]

*laughs in gender neutrality*

But seriosuly, I think this is really quite ridiculous. Women are important but how will we ever claim to have a 'better' future if we're just flipping every issue of today on it's axis? I'd think the reason the men had a higher calorie intake is because they simply thought a bit of hedonistic snacking was available to them. If this was a mission to Mars I could guarantee you that the difference in caloric intake was purely a matter of coincidence. If the men had a lower intake on this mission would they be seen as the gateway to the future? Are we really basing the entire future of mankind on food? There's a lot going on here but I just need to get the point out that sexism isn't going to get us any closer to the stars-if anything, it'd hold us back.
Niw if you were to ask me, I'd say it's time to make some exeptions for space programmes. Should we really insist on money being such an object when it's ;iterally holding us back from the stars? Imagine what we could accomplish with our programs if the only thing to limit us was the availability of resources? Why should we let some societal construct keep us from the glory of the stars? Why should our species be locked on this rock over money and gender and food? Just go!

Well said.

[Bombadil]

*laughs in gender neutrality*

But seriosuly, I think this is really quite ridiculous. Women are important but how will we ever claim to have a 'better' future if we're just flipping every issue of today on it's axis? I'd think the reason the men had a higher calorie intake is because they simply thought a bit of hedonistic snacking was available to them. If this was a mission to Mars I could guarantee you that the difference in caloric intake was purely a matter of coincidence. If the men had a lower intake on this mission would they be seen as the gateway to the future? Are we really basing the entire future of mankind on food? There's a lot going on here but I just need to get the point out that sexism isn't going to get us any closer to the stars-if anything, it'd hold us back.
Niw if you were to ask me, I'd say it's time to make some exeptions for space programmes. Should we really insist on money being such an object when it's ;iterally holding us back from the stars? Imagine what we could accomplish with our programs if the only thing to limit us was the availability of resources? Why should we let some societal construct keep us from the glory of the stars? Why should our species be locked on this rock over money and gender and food? Just go!

Just to note that on arrival the ability to return to males and females is there, it's simply easier to impregnate a woman with frozen sperm than a man with eggs alas. Given they're more fuel efficient as well it's a better choice.

There's also disadvantages in mixed gender given heightened sexual competition.. although I might go google the actuality of that. I do remember anti-feminists claim the gender wage gap is because women aren't as competitive as men.

Gender gaps in wages could also be partly related to a gender gap in competitiveness. Negotiating wages on the job or applying for a job with flexible wage schemes will demand a certain level of competitiveness, which will influence salaries later on in one’s career, irrespective of actual productivity. Indeed, there is evidence that women are somewhat reluctant and less aggressive when it comes to initiating negotiations or applying for jobs with negotiable salaries.

Link - not anti-feminist as evidence for my above claim but studying competitive differences as a potential explanation for wage gaps.

[Bluelight-R006]

All or nothing is the best approach. By that i mean either members of both genders should go, or neither should at all-even if it means our species goes extinct. Why? I'd argue that a species that condemns people to die simply based on their gender should not morally be allowed to survive. Realistically the Human Race is capable of great feats because of it's diversity-including our diversity in that we have two different genders. If we set our minds to sending both genders to space, we will be capable of achieving that goal. I'm certain of it.

Harsh, but true. I believe it’s immature to think that the future of humanity depends on females simply because they consider themselves much more mature. It’s like fighting with your sibling of the opposite gender and saying because of his/her ignorance, this whole gender is condemned. And it’s sad that whoever taught this up is someone who is likely to escape to space.

[United States of Americanas]

There's pretty much no calamity that can possibly befall earth that would make it less hospitable than mars.

Even if we accept the conceit of "need some kind of sealed colony" The resources required to set up a base on mars or the moon as a safe haven in case of global catastrophe would be better spent creating dozens of self-contained biospheres on earth instead.

Shit happens.

This is ridiculous.

There are no NEO’s (Near Earth Orbit) objects capable of doing that and any object capable of that type of destruction would likely come with little if any warning. So colonizing another planet would had to have been done already. No preparation time when something of that size is coming at the planet. Nevermind the launch would be near impossible because the amount of geomagnetic distortion from an object that large becoming a NEO would be enough to render space computer guidance useless and also cause havoc in other avionics.

[Galloism]

*laughs in gender neutrality*

But seriosuly, I think this is really quite ridiculous. Women are important but how will we ever claim to have a 'better' future if we're just flipping every issue of today on it's axis? I'd think the reason the men had a higher calorie intake is because they simply thought a bit of hedonistic snacking was available to them. If this was a mission to Mars I could guarantee you that the difference in caloric intake was purely a matter of coincidence. If the men had a lower intake on this mission would they be seen as the gateway to the future? Are we really basing the entire future of mankind on food? There's a lot going on here but I just need to get the point out that sexism isn't going to get us any closer to the stars-if anything, it'd hold us back.
Niw if you were to ask me, I'd say it's time to make some exeptions for space programmes. Should we really insist on money being such an object when it's ;iterally holding us back from the stars? Imagine what we could accomplish with our programs if the only thing to limit us was the availability of resources? Why should we let some societal construct keep us from the glory of the stars? Why should our species be locked on this rock over money and gender and food? Just go!

Just to note that on arrival the ability to return to males and females is there, it's simply easier to impregnate a woman with frozen sperm than a man with eggs alas. Given they're more fuel efficient as well it's a better choice.

There's also disadvantages in mixed gender given heightened sexual competition.. although I might go google the actuality of that.

Again - you’re going to need some men immediately for the sex specialization of upper body strength in order to have a place to live in a reasonable timeframe.

Otherwise, you will encounter substantial difficulties in construction unless you bring specialized equipment and all the fuel or huge solar array you’ll need to run it (above and beyond the power needed to maintain the people). And if you bring all that, say goodbye to your weight savings.

[Galloism]

Shit happens.

This is ridiculous.

There are no NEO’s (Near Earth Orbit) objects capable of doing that and any object capable of that type of destruction would likely come with little if any warning. So colonizing another planet would had to have been done already.

Yes, exactly.

[Bombadil]

All or nothing is the best approach. By that i mean either members of both genders should go, or neither should at all-even if it means our species goes extinct. Why? I'd argue that a species that condemns people to die simply based on their gender should not morally be allowed to survive. Realistically the Human Race is capable of great feats because of it's diversity-including our diversity in that we have two different genders. If we set our minds to sending both genders to space, we will be capable of achieving that goal. I'm certain of it.

Harsh, but true. I believe it’s immature to think that the future of humanity depends on females simply because they consider themselves much more mature. It’s like fighting with your sibling of the opposite gender and saying because of his/her ignorance, this whole gender is condemned. And it’s sad that whoever taught this up is someone who is likely to escape to space.

Again, it's not just that.. they're more fuel efficient for one, and to amplify cooperation over competitiveness, regardless of gender, it's better to take just one gender or the other.

The only argument I've seen for mixed is you need strong men to set up a new colony, which seems highly questionable as to weighing over efficiency and less competition for the flight alone.

On setting up a colony can reproduce men, and certainly easier than reproducing females given an all male flight.

[Galloism]

*laughs in gender neutrality*

But seriosuly, I think this is really quite ridiculous. Women are important but how will we ever claim to have a 'better' future if we're just flipping every issue of today on it's axis? I'd think the reason the men had a higher calorie intake is because they simply thought a bit of hedonistic snacking was available to them. If this was a mission to Mars I could guarantee you that the difference in caloric intake was purely a matter of coincidence. If the men had a lower intake on this mission would they be seen as the gateway to the future? Are we really basing the entire future of mankind on food? There's a lot going on here but I just need to get the point out that sexism isn't going to get us any closer to the stars-if anything, it'd hold us back.
Niw if you were to ask me, I'd say it's time to make some exeptions for space programmes. Should we really insist on money being such an object when it's ;iterally holding us back from the stars? Imagine what we could accomplish with our programs if the only thing to limit us was the availability of resources? Why should we let some societal construct keep us from the glory of the stars? Why should our species be locked on this rock over money and gender and food? Just go!

Just to note that on arrival the ability to return to males and females is there, it's simply easier to impregnate a woman with frozen sperm than a man with eggs alas. Given they're more fuel efficient as well it's a better choice.

There's also disadvantages in mixed gender given heightened sexual competition.. although I might go google the actuality of that. I do remember anti-feminists claim the gender wage gap is because women aren't as competitive as men.

Gender gaps in wages could also be partly related to a gender gap in competitiveness. Negotiating wages on the job or applying for a job with flexible wage schemes will demand a certain level of competitiveness, which will influence salaries later on in one’s career, irrespective of actual productivity. Indeed, there is evidence that women are somewhat reluctant and less aggressive when it comes to initiating negotiations or applying for jobs with negotiable salaries.

Link - not anti-feminist as evidence for my above claim but studying competitive differences as a potential explanation for wage gaps.

It’s actually worth noting competitiveness is a major advantage in a huge project like building a colony - it makes people work longer and harder than they otherwise would, just to score artificial “points”.

In management, you actually learn to harness your employees competitiveness to drive them towards maximum performance. It’s a tried and true technique for two teams to compete for the highest performance in <x>, just for bragging rights.

When you do it, both teams excel.

[Bombadil]

Just to note that on arrival the ability to return to males and females is there, it's simply easier to impregnate a woman with frozen sperm than a man with eggs alas. Given they're more fuel efficient as well it's a better choice.

There's also disadvantages in mixed gender given heightened sexual competition.. although I might go google the actuality of that. I do remember anti-feminists claim the gender wage gap is because women aren't as competitive as men.

Gender gaps in wages could also be partly related to a gender gap in competitiveness. Negotiating wages on the job or applying for a job with flexible wage schemes will demand a certain level of competitiveness, which will influence salaries later on in one’s career, irrespective of actual productivity. Indeed, there is evidence that women are somewhat reluctant and less aggressive when it comes to initiating negotiations or applying for jobs with negotiable salaries.

Link - not anti-feminist as evidence for my above claim but studying competitive differences as a potential explanation for wage gaps.

It’s actually worth noting competitiveness is a major advantage in a huge project like building a colony - it makes people work longer and harder than they otherwise would, just to score artificial “points”.

In management, you actually learn to harness your employees competitiveness to drive them towards maximum performance. It’s a tried and true technique for two teams to compete for the highest performance in <x>, just for bragging rights.

When you do it, both teams excel.

The women can impregnate themselves 16 years before landing to set up the colony.

[Nova Cyberia]

Sexist trash like this is not going to lead to a more desirable future.

[Galloism]

It’s actually worth noting competitiveness is a major advantage in a huge project like building a colony - it makes people work longer and harder than they otherwise would, just to score artificial “points”.

In management, you actually learn to harness your employees competitiveness to drive them towards maximum performance. It’s a tried and true technique for two teams to compete for the highest performance in <x>, just for bragging rights.

When you do it, both teams excel.

The women can impregnate themselves 16 years before landing to set up the colony.

Are they going to Saturn?

[United States of Americanas]

This is ridiculous.

There are no NEO’s (Near Earth Orbit) objects capable of doing that and any object capable of that type of destruction would likely come with little if any warning. So colonizing another planet would had to have been done already.

Yes, exactly.

$3.0 Billion per year to run the international space station.

Let’s see here, ISS is legally able to hold 8 people and no more due to evacuation constraints and not enough sleeping berths.

So to make calculations easy and to assume realism let’s say each space craft holds five people, because ISS does not always have 6 people on it.

The spacecraft its self would cost about 3 Billion per year just for five people.

The minimal viable number to have a seed for a new society is fifty. So that translates to 30 Billion dollars and that’s for one single year. Let’s say it takes 10 years to get to the new planet, enjoy your 300 Billion dollar space program.

This doesn’t include building materials and payload carriage. Payloads would likely need to be carried in large unmanned rocket vehicles controlled by the command vessels at a cost of let’s say 1.5 Billion a piece multiplied by eh, 25 for a total of 37.5 Billion dollars per annum of freight carriage.

So already the idea of colonizing another planet is plain out of question. Forgot who posted it but we would be better off just building domed self contained biomes on earth.

[United States of Americanas]

It’s actually worth noting competitiveness is a major advantage in a huge project like building a colony - it makes people work longer and harder than they otherwise would, just to score artificial “points”.

In management, you actually learn to harness your employees competitiveness to drive them towards maximum performance. It’s a tried and true technique for two teams to compete for the highest performance in <x>, just for bragging rights.

When you do it, both teams excel.

The women can impregnate themselves 16 years before landing to set up the colony.

Dealing with 40 something infants on a space ship sounds like a royal bitch!

[Galloism]

Yes, exactly.

$3.0 Billion per year to run the international space station.

Let’s see here, ISS is legally able to hold 8 people and no more due to evacuation constraints and not enough sleeping berths.

So to make calculations easy and to assume realism let’s say each space craft holds five people, because ISS does not always have 6 people on it.

The spacecraft its self would cost about 3 Billion per year just for five people.

The minimal viable number to have a seed for a new society is fifty. So that translates to 30 Billion dollars and that’s for one single year. Let’s say it takes 10 years to get to the new planet, enjoy your 300 Billion dollar space program.

This doesn’t include building materials and payload carriage. Payloads would likely need to be carried in large unmanned rocket vehicles controlled by the command vessels at a cost of let’s say 1.5 Billion a piece multiplied by eh, 25 for a total of 37.5 Billion dollars per annum of freight carriage.

So already the idea of colonizing another planet is plain out of question. Forgot who posted it but we would be better off just building domed self contained biomes on earth.

Well the idea is to make it self contained and maintained, so it’s a one time cost.

Even if it takes 10 years and costs 675 billion dollars, that’s not too bad over ten years.

[Pyta]

It’s actually worth noting competitiveness is a major advantage in a huge project like building a colony - it makes people work longer and harder than they otherwise would, just to score artificial “points”.

In management, you actually learn to harness your employees competitiveness to drive them towards maximum performance. It’s a tried and true technique for two teams to compete for the highest performance in <x>, just for bragging rights.

When you do it, both teams excel.

There's absolutely no evidence of this as anything even resembling a hard and fast rule. There's some studies that show it can sometimes motivate salespeople, but that's hardly the same as a mars mission. It does, definitively, increase stress on people, and on a mars mission "deliberately increasing stress" lands somewhere between "incredibly bad idea" and "literally homicidal"

[Galloism]

The women can impregnate themselves 16 years before landing to set up the colony.

Dealing with 40 something infants on a space ship sounds like a royal bitch!

Not even that. Mars is only like 6-12 months away (depending on how fast you go). You’ll have a bunch of 14 /15 year olds at liftoff.

[Bombadil]

The women can impregnate themselves 16 years before landing to set up the colony.

Dealing with 40 something infants on a space ship sounds like a royal bitch!

We'll need more child-proof locks.

The women can impregnate themselves 16 years before landing to set up the colony.

Are they going to Saturn?

To be fair I wasn't thinking of a short escape to Mars, more a situation of long term space travel.

[Bluelight-R006]

Sexist trash like this is not going to lead to a more desirable future.

This ^^

I wouldn’t like anywhere in our solar system. Probably start anew in an entirely new solar system like TRAPPIST-1.

[Kaztropol]

[i]1. Kate Greene participated in a mock Mars mission and found that female crew members expended less than half the calories of the male crew members. Less than half! They were all exercising roughly the same amount—at least 45 minutes a day for five consecutive days a week—but their metabolic furnaces were calibrated in radically different ways.
During one week, the most metabolically active male burned an average of 3,450 calories per day, while the least metabolically active female expended 1,475 calories per day. It was rare for a woman on crew to burn 2,000 calories in a day and common for male crew members to exceed 3,000.

Comparing the highest (3450) to the lowest (1475), and saying it was rare for women to exceed 2000, and common for men to exceed 3000, doesn't provide enough numbers to make the statement about female crew using less than half the calories of male crew. Comparing the two extremes isn't as useful as comparing the averages.
And what is meant by the exercise ? is it proportional to body weight ? Exercise is necessary for astronauts to maintain bone and muscle in microgravity.

The calorie requirements of an astronaut matter significantly when planning a mission. The more food a person needs to maintain her weight on a long space journey, the more food should launch with her. The more food launched, the heavier the payload. The heavier the payload, the more fuel required to blast it into orbit and beyond. The more fuel required, the more expensive the launch becomes.

Most long-duration missions such as Mars missions, they are primarily looking at recycling of nutrients, rather than the idea of a store of food. Admittedly that does mean your hydroponics module has to be larger if your crew needs more food, but still, crew requirements are p.much an afterthought compared to the rest of the stuff needed for the spacecraft.

Additionally, a Mars mission would more likely be assembled in orbit, requiring many launches of smaller craft, rather than a single big launch. In that situation, the additional mass requirements are far less of a concern.

[Galloism]

It’s actually worth noting competitiveness is a major advantage in a huge project like building a colony - it makes people work longer and harder than they otherwise would, just to score artificial “points”.

In management, you actually learn to harness your employees competitiveness to drive them towards maximum performance. It’s a tried and true technique for two teams to compete for the highest performance in <x>, just for bragging rights.

When you do it, both teams excel.

There's absolutely no evidence of this as anything even resembling a hard and fast rule. There's some studies that show it can sometimes motivate salespeople, but that's hardly the same as a mars mission. It does, definitively, increase stress on people, and on a mars mission "deliberately increasing stress" lands somewhere between "incredibly bad idea" and "literally homicidal"

Well, they key is also not to make it life changing whether you win or lose. The rewards should be relatively small and nominal - the goal is to win for its own sake, not for your livelihood.

I mean, if you kill the losing team, that’s probably stress inducing and not a good idea.

[Galloism]

Dealing with 40 something infants on a space ship sounds like a royal bitch!

We'll need more child-proof locks.

Are they going to Saturn?

To be fair I wasn't thinking of a short escape to Mars, more a situation of long term space travel.

Like outside the solar system?