An all female future..

[Galloism]

And after 15 years or so, you’ll have some. That’s really not fast enough.

Humans don’t grow very fast.



I’d say comparing a bunch of idle boys to grown men selected for a mission in such a manner is disingenuous. It’s akin to me studying caterpillars and determining based on that that butterflies can’t fly.

Not saying I fully agree, or don't demand a degree of nuance but..

Many people know that a person's character and personality is largely established by the time they are very young. The traits that will define that individual throughout his or her life can be clearly identified when he or she is as little as 7 years old. In a new investigation, scientists show that, by the time they start going to school, children already exhibit the personality traits that will remain with them throughout their lives. This was clearly established in a new paper, written by experts at the University of California in Riverside (UCR), LiveScience reports.

Link

Um, I don’t get the relevance.

[United States of Americanas]

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?

I feel like we deserve a source for all of this.

Partial source found https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ozen-sperm

Also, having babies in space has zero known research. What research we do have proves that space birth is going to be very risky or impossible. https://longroom.com/discussion/1535796 ... abies-soon

As for this actual hypothetical scenario, it’s highly unlikely that a planet with 7.42 billion people will select a dozen women and then let 7.42 billion people die.

Second of all if such a thing were to happen I am pretty sure GOD would intervene, and not in a good way either, I’m talking about annihilation.

So let’s stop focusing on colonizing other planets and start focusing on controlling global warming and creating technology that can help us repair the atmospheric layers.

GOD gave us this planet, and so far people have totally trashed it. GOD is not likely going to be like “Here go ahead go to some other earth like planet that’s inhabitable and screw that up too”

Fix it or die trying!

[Galloism]

I feel like we deserve a source for all of this.

Partial source found https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ozen-sperm

Also, having babies in space has zero known research. What research we do have proves that space birth is going to be very risky or impossible. https://longroom.com/discussion/1535796 ... abies-soon

As for this actual hypothetical scenario, it’s highly unlikely that a planet with 7.42 billion people will select a dozen women and then let 7.42 billion people die.

Second of all if such a thing were to happen I am pretty sure GOD would intervene, and not in a good way either, I’m talking about annihilation.

Functionally, you’d need a minimum of 25 or 30. For humanity you need 50 individuals to maintain sufficient genetic diversity to survive.

[Bombadil]

Not saying I fully agree, or don't demand a degree of nuance but..

Many people know that a person's character and personality is largely established by the time they are very young. The traits that will define that individual throughout his or her life can be clearly identified when he or she is as little as 7 years old. In a new investigation, scientists show that, by the time they start going to school, children already exhibit the personality traits that will remain with them throughout their lives. This was clearly established in a new paper, written by experts at the University of California in Riverside (UCR), LiveScience reports.

Link

Um, I don’t get the relevance.

One would argue that, on average, the male is more prone to destructive behaviour than the female, so given equally trained astronauts then it's a safer bet to go all female, especially when they also use less energy and men aren't technically needed anyway.

[Bombadil]

I feel like we deserve a source for all of this.

Partial source found https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ozen-sperm

Also, having babies in space has zero known research. What research we do have proves that space birth is going to be very risky or impossible. https://longroom.com/discussion/1535796 ... abies-soon

As for this actual hypothetical scenario, it’s highly unlikely that a planet with 7.42 billion people will select a dozen women and then let 7.42 billion people die.

Second of all if such a thing were to happen I am pretty sure GOD would intervene, and not in a good way either, I’m talking about annihilation.

So let’s stop focusing on colonizing other planets and start focusing on controlling global warming and creating technology that can help us repair the atmospheric layers.

GOD gave us this planet, and so far people have totally trashed it. GOD is not likely going to be like “Here go ahead go to some other earth like planet that’s inhabitable and screw that up too”

Fix it or die trying!

Source on calories.. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180953096/
Source on frozen sperm.. https://www.thehealthsite.com/news/huma ... ns-673516/

I can't really source the 3rd as it's one person's account of some secret study.

[Christian Confederation]

It would only take a while for the strongest person to asert domance over the others.

Plus haven't y'all seen any movie?
We send a crapp ton of people, Earth's best and brightest into space to carry on.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

-snip-

That is a nice cringe worthy article from The Guardian, but I expected nothing less from those idiots.

Edit: Before some radfem accuses me of getting "offended" over scientific facts, there was little "facts" presented in that Guardian article other than you can freeze sperm, and do all female missions. This hardly justifies complete matriarchy in space or on Earth. It also contains misandrist assumptions about men.

[Galloism]

Um, I don’t get the relevance.

One would argue that, on average, the male is more prone to destructive behaviour than the female, so given equally trained astronauts then it's a safer bet to go all female, especially when they also use less energy and men aren't technically needed anyway.

Men are more likely to establish and maintain hierarchies.

There are huge functional hierarchies with millions of men operating today that have for centuries. The notion that men can’t cooperate for the societal good is both ahistorical and ludicrous.

It’s also worth noting there’s substantial evidence that boys who grow up without father figures are more likely to be violent and have antisocial behavior. But don’t take my word for it -

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 8709359652

279% higher risk of drug dealing and carrying weapons.

Lack of a father figure in life starts causing behavioral problems by age 1 (long before your age 7)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 12.02583.x

So 15 years later when you get your young men, lacking a father figure, you’re likely to have serious problems, far more than we have statistically on earth, and not know why.

[Bluelight-R006]

I think it’s more wise to take the best and brightest (which can also be men) into space, and not just take females in. I think that assuming all men would fight over a position of dominance and therefore can not be allowed into the future is sexist.

I support a mixed gender society, like now, and how we still live on.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I think it’s more wise to take the best and brightest (which can also be men) into space, and not just take females in. I think that assuming all men would fight over a position of dominance and therefore can not be allowed into the future is sexist.

I support a mixed gender society, like now, and how we still live on.

This ^^

[Galloism]

I think it’s more wise to take the best and brightest (which can also be men) into space, and not just take females in. I think that assuming all men would fight over a position of dominance and therefore can not be allowed into the future is sexist.

I support a mixed gender society, like now, and how we still live on.

There’s also a factor of how many people we can send. If it’s few (50ish individuals), the genetic diversity of the 50 would also be super relevant to the selection process.

If we can send 500 or 5000 that’s less important.

[United States of Americanas]

-snip-

That is a nice cringe worthy article from The Guardian, but I expected nothing less from those idiots.

Edit: Before some radfem accuses me of getting "offended" over scientific facts, there was little "facts" presented in that Guardian article other than you can freeze sperm, and do all female missions. This hardly justifies complete matriarchy in space or on Earth.

Duh, Matriarchy is plain stupid. It’s just a feminist fascist move.

For the universe to function there must be a mixture of genders, period!

@Bombadil guess what, I’ve seen women in jail cells serving life sentences for killing their husbands.

Woman are just as prone as men to being destructive.

[Bombadil]

-snip-

That is a nice cringe worthy article from The Guardian, but I expected nothing less from those idiots.

Edit: Before some radfem accuses me of getting "offended" over scientific facts, there was little "facts" presented in that Guardian article other than you can freeze sperm, and do all female missions. This hardly justifies complete matriarchy in space or on Earth.

I posted two more scientific cites just above.. the third is somewhat hearsay so no use citing really. They expend near half the energy thus needing less payload for long term flight.

[Galloism]

That is a nice cringe worthy article from The Guardian, but I expected nothing less from those idiots.

Edit: Before some radfem accuses me of getting "offended" over scientific facts, there was little "facts" presented in that Guardian article other than you can freeze sperm, and do all female missions. This hardly justifies complete matriarchy in space or on Earth.

I posted two more scientific cites just above.. the third is somewhat hearsay so no use citing really. They expend near half the energy thus needing less payload for long term flight.

In reality, a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio is probably best for max survival possibility. Frozen sperm should be taken though, for genetic diversity reasons.

Frozen embryos aren’t a bad choice either if they keep, provided you could reasonably use them when you got there (you brought sufficient equipment with you).

[The Sherpa Empire]

Men and women are complementary.

We don't need one or the other - we need both. Men serve certain roles, and women serve others.

Its like a two piece puzzle.

You're missing the point of the hypothetical. It's not asking what is the ideal mix of people in a normal social setting.

I wouldn’t do anything. I’d be supportive that at least there would be some people escaping. Not to mention that if I don’t rebel and sabotage, someone else probably will and I will get a chance escaping, not knowing that regardless, we’d get wiped out.

Plus, the sperm is going to run out sometime. Sperm isn’t unlimited with the presence of only females. So I doubt this humanity will last for Millenniums, unless they find a way to recreate sperm.

But nonetheless I don’t support the thinking that, “If I can’t live, no one can.” Knowing that at some point we will all die, now or then. As long as humanity lives on, I’m okay.

They didn't say the sperm would be sorted to have only X-chromosome sperm, so the next generation after they reach their destination and use the sperm would have both sexes.

[Xmara]

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

Well I mean if the crew is all female...

[United States of Americanas]

That is a nice cringe worthy article from The Guardian, but I expected nothing less from those idiots.

Edit: Before some radfem accuses me of getting "offended" over scientific facts, there was little "facts" presented in that Guardian article other than you can freeze sperm, and do all female missions. This hardly justifies complete matriarchy in space or on Earth.

I posted two more scientific cites just above.. the third is somewhat hearsay so no use citing really. They expend near half the energy thus needing less payload for long term flight.

Who’s to say that there is an inhabitable planet within a reasonable space flight range? The nearest earth like specimen we have is outside of this galaxy.

Mars, ok, fine, y’all colonize it but you can’t breathe the outside air and you have to stay inside of domed capsules forever. Also a giant wind storm hits and a flying rock smashes through the glass. RIP everyone is dead.

Now you see why it is a stupid idea? Let’s quit pouring billions of dollars into colonizing other planets that we are likely not even welcome upon and focus our funding on repairing the damaged ozone layer and reversing global warming.

GOD didn’t create earth just for us to leave it behind. This is his gift to us and we are to take care of it.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

That is a nice cringe worthy article from The Guardian, but I expected nothing less from those idiots.

Edit: Before some radfem accuses me of getting "offended" over scientific facts, there was little "facts" presented in that Guardian article other than you can freeze sperm, and do all female missions. This hardly justifies complete matriarchy in space or on Earth.

I posted two more scientific cites just above.. the third is somewhat hearsay so no use citing really. They expend near half the energy thus needing less payload for long term flight.

I'm not disputing that. Also, Galloism explained why men might be needed anyway to raise young in space.

Either way, my previous post was to go against The Guardian's stupidity, not go after your fictional scenario.

[Bombadil]

I posted two more scientific cites just above.. the third is somewhat hearsay so no use citing really. They expend near half the energy thus needing less payload for long term flight.

Who’s to say that there is an inhabitable planet within a reasonable space flight range? The nearest earth like specimen we have is outside of this galaxy.

Mars, ok, fine, y’all colonize it but you can’t breathe the outside air and you have to stay inside of domed capsules forever. Also a giant wind storm hits and a flying rock smashes through the glass. RIP everyone is dead.

Now you see why it is a stupid idea? Let’s quit pouring billions of dollars into colonizing other planets that we are likely not even welcome upon and focus our funding on repairing the damaged ozone layer and reversing global warming.

GOD didn’t create earth just for us to leave it behind. This is his gift to us and we are to take care of it.

It may be a case of just floating around earth for enough time for things to settle down.

I mean, sure, ideally we ensure earth remain habitable but even then it's in our best interests to find other places to inhabit.. what if a meteor strikes earth, or something devastatingly geological occurs..

..best not to have all our eggs in one basket.

[Galloism]

I posted two more scientific cites just above.. the third is somewhat hearsay so no use citing really. They expend near half the energy thus needing less payload for long term flight.

Who’s to say that there is an inhabitable planet within a reasonable space flight range? The nearest earth like specimen we have is outside of this galaxy.

Mars, ok, fine, y’all colonize it but you can’t breathe the outside air and you have to stay inside of domed capsules forever. Also a giant wind storm hits and a flying rock smashes through the glass. RIP everyone is dead.

Now you see why it is a stupid idea? Let’s quit pouring billions of dollars into colonizing other planets that we are likely not even welcome upon and focus our funding on repairing the damaged ozone layer and reversing global warming.

GOD didn’t create earth just for us to leave it behind. This is his gift to us and we are to take care of it.

Actually, I think we decided domes weren’t the best.

I saw a design sometime back with a double wall, used like 99% mars materials, sort of resembled a pitcher plant.

[Galloism]

Who’s to say that there is an inhabitable planet within a reasonable space flight range? The nearest earth like specimen we have is outside of this galaxy.

Mars, ok, fine, y’all colonize it but you can’t breathe the outside air and you have to stay inside of domed capsules forever. Also a giant wind storm hits and a flying rock smashes through the glass. RIP everyone is dead.

Now you see why it is a stupid idea? Let’s quit pouring billions of dollars into colonizing other planets that we are likely not even welcome upon and focus our funding on repairing the damaged ozone layer and reversing global warming.

GOD didn’t create earth just for us to leave it behind. This is his gift to us and we are to take care of it.

It may be a case of just floating around earth for enough time for things to settle down.

I mean, sure, ideally we ensure earth remain habitable but even then it's in our best interests to find other places to inhabit.. what if a meteor strikes earth, or something devastatingly geological occurs..

..best not to have all our eggs in one basket.

I unironically agree with this. At a minimum, we need a lunar colony. Mars would be better. Venus upper atmosphere (floating cities) also isn’t that crazy.

Harder than mars, but not crazy.

[Bluelight-R006]

I think it’s more wise to take the best and brightest (which can also be men) into space, and not just take females in. I think that assuming all men would fight over a position of dominance and therefore can not be allowed into the future is sexist.

I support a mixed gender society, like now, and how we still live on.

There’s also a factor of how many people we can send. If it’s few (50ish individuals), the genetic diversity of the 50 would also be super relevant to the selection process.

If we can send 500 or 5000 that’s less important.

I think it would still be best to analyse those we’re sending. Give them a form or two and we can see if they’d intervene with the progress of humanity.

But never ever would I assume all but females aren’t worthy, aren’t intelligent enough of the job of rebuilding humanity.

[ImperialRussia]

wow mehhh
you are dependent on your both panthers male and female for survival if you want humanity to survive then act strict by the code

[Bluelight-R006]

wow mehhh
you are dependent on your both panthers male and female for survival if you want humanity to survive then act strict by the code

Women do need sexual needs... not just by masturbation. Sometimes a man needs to do it.

It would be quite messed up if their sons were doing it, but they probably thought it was okay, too.

[Pyta]

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.