NationStates

Chan Island wrote:Aw, shucks. Do I at least get to go along?

Neanderthaland wrote:How are we ever going to achieve Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism now?

Well, we can still have Fully Automated Luxury Lesbian Space Communism at least.

Vetalia wrote:I suspect they could find enough in the caloric budget to bring along one man who could perform this duty with much more viable sperm than a bunch of frozen samples that could be destroyed, degraded or lost in the journey. He could even give a speech before he leaves:

"Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth"

Galloism wrote:

Vetalia wrote:I suspect they could find enough in the caloric budget to bring along one man who could perform this duty with much more viable sperm than a bunch of frozen samples that could be destroyed, degraded or lost in the journey. He could even give a speech before he leaves:

"Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth"

That probably won't work for genetic diversity reasons.

Vetalia wrote:I suspect they could find enough in the caloric budget to bring along one man who could perform this duty with much more viable sperm than a bunch of frozen samples that could be destroyed, degraded or lost in the journey. He could even give a speech before he leaves:

"Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth"

Versail wrote:Like aside from the sperm thing the rest seems biased.

Kowani wrote:It wouldn’t.

Vetalia wrote:

Kowani wrote:It wouldn’t.

Alas!

Kowani wrote:

Galloism wrote:That probably won't work for genetic diversity reasons.

It wouldn’t.

The population of 2000 gets halved over time, which is not good. And though the smaller populations (150 and 500) look as if they survived better, that's partially because those populations had to have looser birth restrictions: Whereas in the simulations, the larger populations were allowed to have only one child per couple, the smaller populations allowed a couple to have two or three children to ensure the survival of the community. In the end, the growth cancelled out the disastrous effects. And if we take a look at the original 10 simulations for the 150-person starship (see graph below), we can see that three of the populations were totally wiped out. For 500 people, only one population got wiped out, and the risk of a wipeout gets smaller as population size goes up. The takeaway is that for both factors (genetic diversity and catastrophe survival), bigger populations are better.

Bombadil wrote: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?

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Versail wrote:Like aside from the sperm thing the rest seems biased.

That's because it is. The "men would bicker over who is in charge" makes it blatantly obvious.

US-SSR wrote:Women would be the better choice, because men would be sexually assaulting each other inside of a week.

Be that as it may no human being should go into space. There is nothing that advanced probes cannot do that humans can, and probes don't die from cosmic radiation, muscular atrophy or asphixiation after micrometeorites turn their space sprocket into Swiss cheese.

Galloism wrote:

US-SSR wrote:Women would be the better choice, because men would be sexually assaulting each other inside of a week.

Be that as it may no human being should go into space. There is nothing that advanced probes cannot do that humans can, and probes don't die from cosmic radiation, muscular atrophy or asphixiation after micrometeorites turn their space sprocket into Swiss cheese.

Someone needs to put some security cameras in the international space station, stat.

Bombadil wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
That's because it is. The "men would bicker over who is in charge" makes it blatantly obvious.

Take it up with NASA.

The program quickly lays out the essential elements of the story. A 1925 War Department study concluded that blacks were temperamentally and biologically unsuited to become pilots.

Inkopolitia wrote:Coming from a female, this is sexist, in a way

Cekoviu wrote:

Inkopolitia wrote:Coming from a female, this is sexist, in a way

Does being female make you more qualified to speak as to whether something is sexist?

Kowani wrote:

Galloism wrote:That probably won't work for genetic diversity reasons.

It wouldn’t.

Inkopolitia wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Does being female make you more qualified to speak as to whether something is sexist?

I should've clarified that, yes. Just wanted to throw my two cents ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Cekoviu wrote:

Inkopolitia wrote:I should've clarified that, yes. Just wanted to throw my two cents ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It does not, by the way.

Galloism wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
Take it up with NASA.

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

The program quickly lays out the essential elements of the story. A 1925 War Department study concluded that blacks were temperamentally and biologically unsuited to become pilots.

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

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

Bombadil wrote:

Kowani wrote:It wouldn’t.

That's why frozen sperm for the win, dramatically lowers the head count.

NERVUN wrote:Earth is truly in trouble and we are tying to make our mark in the stars and survive as a species...

Captain Jane T. Kirk has just as good of a ring as any I suppose....

Kowani wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
That's why frozen sperm for the win, dramatically lowers the head count.

But I want my generation ships…