An all female future..

[Galloism]

Governments (and scientists) come to bigoted results sometimes, based on what they were looking for. It happens.



https://www.historynet.com/wwii-review- ... airmen.htm

Then again, they studied it. It must be true.

This one's further compromised in that we can't see it given it's an alleged secret study by NASA, so we can't really say much about it either way to be fair.

I have severe doubts as to its efficacy.

Also, I have severe doubts as to astronauts resembling the general population in this regard.

[Carenzia]

"An all-female future" would not work. You can't have one without the other, no matter how many things you add in to make challenges less challenging. Woman have had it a bit 'hard' I would say, but sometimes it goes just a bit too far. 'Pushing the envelope'. You need variation and difference in everything. For example, the US hasn't had a woman president. BUT we have made it along for the past that they were allowed to run. So really, there is no right or wrong between male and female.

[Bluelight-R006]

The future of humanity shouldn’t come to a point where we have to decide who lives by a few biased statements against all men. They say men are dominant and fight for positions, but that’s not the case for all. There are some gentle men, whom I’m sure could be sent to space. And those men will die because of a biased statement against all men, generalising all men and thus restricting them from escaping.

I think that’s just wrong — we’re smarter than that. We should send our best and brightest people (which can include males), and not just females. Are we really going to forsake precious lives because of a sexist statement?

And the calorie intake, which proves men need to consume more food doesn’t necessarily mean that they always do. Maybe less workout?

[Syfenq]

3 points..

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.

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.

2. New research from Dexeus Women’s Health in Barcelona shows that once sperm is collected and frozen, it can survive in microgravity with no ill effects.

3. Nasa looked into this years ago, according to Helen Sharman, the first Briton in space. She told an audience in 2017 that the US commissioned a secret study into long-term space travel, which recommended that to stop people having sex, “the crew should be the same gender: all men or all women”. Apparently women were the better choice, because men would quarrel about who was in charge.

So given a situation where the earth was truly in trouble and we had one shot of escaping this planet with long term space travel, our best bet is to have an all-female crew with frozen sperm.

Given this was the case, would you accept this, that only females be selected for the escape or would you object if not attempt to sabotage and have humanity wiped out regardless?

We would need pretty advanced artificial fertilization technology (placentas and shit) and/or a constant supply of sperm to make this work.

[The Snazzylands]

I mean if the data check out, yeah it makes sense. Women are (or should be) just as capable as men at manning spacecraft, and if an all-female crew is more efficient, then go for it. The more efficient manned space missions are, the more of them we can have.
The part that implies women would never squabble over power is ridiculous, but they'll figure that part out as soon as they start putting the crews together.
Edit: I'm a male by the way.

Coming from a female, this is sexist, in a way

"Metabolic differences between males and females is sexist."

[Kowani]

The future of humanity shouldn’t come to a point where we have to decide who lives by a few biased statements against all men. They say men are dominant and fight for positions, but that’s not the case for all. There are some gentle men, whom I’m sure could be sent to space. And those men will die because of a biased statement against all men, generalising all men and thus restricting them from escaping.

I think that’s just wrong — we’re smarter than that. We should send our best and brightest people (which can include males), and not just females. Are we really going to forsake precious lives because of a sexist statement?

And the calorie intake, which proves men need to consume more food doesn’t necessarily mean that they always do. Maybe less workout?

Gotta maintain muscle structure, mate.

[Araraukar]

Am I the only one suddenly reminded of how anglerfish handle the issue of males only really being needed for reproduction to make sperm for the female to use? Maybe we could sort out something similar for the future colonists? That way you wouldn't waste resources on individuals unable to produce the next generation, but still wouldn't lose the genetic diversity and recombination bonuses completely.

Forget about needing to vat-grow entire humans, just vat-grow male gonads and you're set.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Men bad!

[Northwest Slobovia]

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.

Without more information, I'm gonna call this cherry-picking and thus worthless.

[Araraukar]

Without more information, I'm gonna call this cherry-picking and thus worthless.

Ask NASA for more information, they're the ones sitting on it. But it's not like it should come as a surprise to anyone that men use up more calories; bigger body uses up more - so obviously we should send short people. Leave Mars for hobbits! The irony is that lower gravity would mean they'd be a bit taller over there.

...I wonder if hobbits would get along better or worse than the humans NASA studied?

[Saiwania]

Well, an argument could be had that every person begins with an XX template at conception but only becomes XY later on if that's going to happen. I'd contend that no biological life should be in space, we're just not suited to space travel. Instead, all of it can be done by machines. So much more money is saved if a pristine and friendly environment doesn't have to constantly be maintained.

If a planet suitable for life is terraformed, that is when people can actually settle it.

[The New California Republic]

I'd contend that no biological life should be in space, we're just not suited to space travel.

This argument just fails, because by that same logic we shouldn't fly around in aircraft, since we aren't suited to the skies either...

[Cekoviu]

Well, an argument could be had that every person begins with an XX template at conception but only becomes XY later on if that's going to happen.

That's not how reproduction works, Jesus fucking Christ. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you have no idea how meiosis works given all of the other shit that you post.

[Araraukar]

we're just not suited to space travel. Instead, all of it can be done by machines.

We humans aren't suited for travel in the air or underwater either, but our technology has enabled that. We also have all the time a handful of humans in space, in orbit of this planet. An not all can be done by machines, at least not well. We don't have good enough robot technology yet.

[Saiwania]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you have no idea how meiosis works given all of the other shit that you post.

Give your explanation as to why males have nipples even if its non-functional unlike a woman's? The answer must be because at the very earliest stage of development, the default is for the fetus to be female as opposed to male.

[Kowani]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you have no idea how meiosis works given all of the other shit that you post.

Give your explanation as to why males have nipples even if its non-functional unlike a woman's? The answer must be because at the very earliest stage of development, the default is for the fetus to be female as opposed to male.

What do we have an appendix for?

[Cekoviu]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you have no idea how meiosis works given all of the other shit that you post.

Give your explanation as to why males have nipples even if its non-functional unlike a woman's? The answer must be because at the very earliest stage of development, the default is for the fetus to be female as opposed to male.

Developing humans start off with a female body plan, which will indeed be altered to a typical male body plan if they have XY chromosomes (if all goes well and they do not end up with a number of various complications altering this).
However, you said the following:

[E]very person begins with an XX template at conception but only becomes XY later on if that's going to happen.

This is blatantly false. The sex chromosomes, as with all genetic material in a gamete, are determined during meiosis.

[Saiwania]

We humans aren't suited for travel in the air or underwater either, but our technology has enabled that. We also have all the time a handful of humans in space, in orbit of this planet. An not all can be done by machines, at least not well. We don't have good enough robot technology yet.

It arguably shouldn't be done until robots are good enough, they don't require so many costly things that living beings do. It wouldn't be so hard to live in space like we do on submarines or in the air with all of the human limitations still present, if there were an easy way to artificially create gravity for our needs; but as it stands- people that're in space for too long are just doomed to constantly deteriorate.

Space is too inhospitable to such a large extent over the long term. We've yet to have any true breakthroughs so far as making space truly livable. That is why we don't want to venture far from our planet, because chances are we can't pull it off. There also really is nothing out there, within our reach. Nearly every single planet we find will suck or be not ideal in some way. We only got the one paradise planet it seems, where conditions were exactly right.

[The New California Republic]

Space is too inhospitable to such a large extent over the long term. We've yet to have any true breakthroughs so far as making space truly livable. That is why we don't want to venture far from our planet, because chances are we can't pull it off. There also really is nothing out there, within our reach.

Human beings would never get anything done with that kind of pessimistic attitude.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Space is too inhospitable to such a large extent over the long term. We've yet to have any true breakthroughs so far as making space truly livable. That is why we don't want to venture far from our planet, because chances are we can't pull it off. There also really is nothing out there, within our reach.

Human beings would never get anything done with that kind of pessimistic attitude.

He is, however, not wrong. We do need better technology to live in space: at the very least, closed-loop life support -- food, water, and air, and not the leaky mess we've got now -- and better propulsion would be a big help too.

It would also help if we had some economically viable reason to be in space. "It's cool!" doesn't cut it. There probably are such reasons: mining things we're running out of on Earth, manufacturing in the vacuum and micro-gravity of space, etc, etc, but so far, nobody's turned a buck. (Other than comm sats and recon sats, which don't need people actually in space.)

[Earth-Moon System]

Human beings would never get anything done with that kind of pessimistic attitude.

He is, however, not wrong. We do need better technology to live in space: at the very least, closed-loop life support -- food, water, and air, and not the leaky mess we've got now -- and better propulsion would be a big help too.

It would also help if we had some economically viable reason to be in space. "It's cool!" doesn't cut it. There probably are such reasons: mining things we're running out of on Earth, manufacturing in the vacuum and micro-gravity of space, etc, etc, but so far, nobody's turned a buck. (Other than comm sats and recon sats, which don't need people actually in space.)

Another feasible reason would be a space race between warring superpowers, or companies, for influence. Though last time that happened was over 50 years ago.

[Northwest Slobovia]

He is, however, not wrong. We do need better technology to live in space: at the very least, closed-loop life support -- food, water, and air, and not the leaky mess we've got now -- and better propulsion would be a big help too.

It would also help if we had some economically viable reason to be in space. "It's cool!" doesn't cut it. There probably are such reasons: mining things we're running out of on Earth, manufacturing in the vacuum and micro-gravity of space, etc, etc, but so far, nobody's turned a buck. (Other than comm sats and recon sats, which don't need people actually in space.)

Another feasible reason would be a space race between warring superpowers, or companies, for influence. Though last time that happened was over 50 years ago.

Well, the last space race got us a perjorative expression for what not to do next time: "footprints and flags" missions. I'm also not sure of "warring" superpowers: actual warfare, or the likelihood of it, will make space another battlefield, not a new frontier for settlement.

[Bluelight-R006]

We humans aren't suited for travel in the air or underwater either, but our technology has enabled that. We also have all the time a handful of humans in space, in orbit of this planet. An not all can be done by machines, at least not well. We don't have good enough robot technology yet.

Space is too inhospitable to such a large extent over the long term. We've yet to have any true breakthroughs so far as making space truly livable. That is why we don't want to venture far from our planet, because chances are we can't pull it off. There also really is nothing out there, within our reach. Nearly every single planet we find will suck or be not ideal in some way. We only got the one paradise planet it seems, where conditions were exactly right.

I like to think that by the time we do need to escape the Earth, we have advanced technology that could help us travel light years to nearby hospitable planets and settle down. Not to say, now.

[Earth-Moon System]

I'm also not sure of "warring" superpowers: actual warfare, or the likelihood of it, will make space another battlefield, not a new frontier for settlement.

Cold warring

[The Snazzylands]

Well, an argument could be had that every person begins with an XX template at conception but only becomes XY later on if that's going to happen. I'd contend that no biological life should be in space, we're just not suited to space travel. Instead, all of it can be done by machines. So much more money is saved if a pristine and friendly environment doesn't have to constantly be maintained.

If a planet suitable for life is terraformed, that is when people can actually settle it.

First of all, I'd suggest watching a crash course on cell reproduction, my dude.
Secondly, building Earth-like places for human habitation in space would be much easier and more feasible than terraforming. Terraforming planets to live on would be incredibly expensive, both in terms of resources and time, even if we had the technology to do so reliably. Look into space habitats like ringworlds or O'Niell cylinders. They're a much more realistic and sensible option for space colonization, at least in the (relatively) short-term future.