NationStates

Galloism wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
We'll need more child-proof locks.



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?

Yes.

maintaining female immortality impossible the brain will slowly degrade by each clone

Galloism wrote:

Pyta wrote:
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.

I know what you're trying to say but it's fantastically wrong even within it's own, self-contained logic.

Like the reason that competition "works" to increase productivity is precisely because it increases stress on participants. The desire to win the small and nominal rewards creates it's own value within participants, who then stress about it, and can then develop grudges against their opponents. Go ask a car salesperson what they think of the other salespeople at the dealership. You're not going to get a rosy picture.

You are proposing that a mission to mars deliberately create conflict between crew members. It's outlandishly dumb.

ImperialRussia wrote:maintaining female immortal impossible the brain will slowly degrade by each clone

Citation needed.

Bluelight-R006 wrote:

Galloism wrote:Like outside the solar system?

Yes.

I hate to tell you guys this, but using the most advanced recently invented technology available, assuming we can scale it (we’re not sure yet), and get a good slingshot off the sun, it would take around 13,000 years to reach our closest neighboring star.

You would certainly be able to have children 16 years away from destination.... on like the 45th generation of humans.

That future would suck without Keanu Reeves

Also, the pure logistical problems of having a unity gendered society.

Why anyone would support something like this I don't know. Both sexes should be represented.

Galloism wrote:

Bluelight-R006 wrote:Yes.

I hate to tell you guys this, but using the most advanced recently invented technology available, assuming we can scale it (we’re not sure yet), and get a good slingshot off the sun, it would take around 13,000 years to reach our closest neighboring star.

You would certainly be able to have children 16 years away from destination.... on like the 45th generation of humans.

Sure, but only breed females in flight and then males as you approach.

Pyta wrote:

Galloism wrote: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.

I know what you're trying to say but it's fantastically wrong even within it's own, self-contained logic.

Like the reason that competition "works" to increase productivity is precisely because it increases stress on participants. The desire to win the small and nominal rewards creates it's own value within participants, who then stress about it, and can then develop grudges against their opponents. Go ask a car salesperson what they think of the other salespeople at the dealership. You're not going to get a rosy picture.

You are proposing that a mission to mars deliberately create conflict between crew members. It's outlandishly dumb.

I don’t think you’ve ever managed employees.

You might start with this as a quick primer:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2520123

Kowani wrote:

ImperialRussia wrote:maintaining female immortal impossible the brain will slowly degrade by each clone

Citation needed.

I think I heard that in Star Trek: TNG lol

American Pere Housh wrote:Why anyone would support something like this I don't know. Both sexes should be represented.

Well.. I think that's technically the point of the OP.. if it was a given that only having females increased the chances of survival by, say, 50%.. would people still demand males are represented?

Bombadil wrote:

American Pere Housh wrote:Why anyone would support something like this I don't know. Both sexes should be represented.

Well.. I think that's technically the point of the OP.. if it was a given that only having females increased the chances of survival by, say, 50%.. would people still demand males are represented?

Except that's not the reality and will never be the reality. Your desire for a female-dominated society just makes you seem more misandrist.

Bombadil wrote:

Galloism wrote:I hate to tell you guys this, but using the most advanced recently invented technology available, assuming we can scale it (we’re not sure yet), and get a good slingshot off the sun, it would take around 13,000 years to reach our closest neighboring star.

You would certainly be able to have children 16 years away from destination.... on like the 45th generation of humans.

Sure, but only breed females in flight and then males as you approach.

Now you’ve either got to sex separate your sperm before liftoff (can we do that?) or abort/kill all the wrong children.

Presuming we can’t do sex selective sperm, the former takes certain diagnostics and tools (increasing your weight, although it might be worth it) while the latter requires no special skills but extremely strong wills.

Also, we’d have to eat the body or use it as fertilizer in hydroponics.

Not to mention, we really don’t have any idea what 13,000 years of women only society would even look like (this is longer than all of recorded history). It could actually arise a situation where men are seen as slaves or chattel, useful only for their muscles. Doubly so if it’s been passed down for 13,000 years that we will only have men when we need their muscles.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
Well.. I think that's technically the point of the OP.. if it was a given that only having females increased the chances of survival by, say, 50%.. would people still demand males are represented?

Except that's not the reality and will never be the reality. Your desire for a female-dominated society just makes you seem more misandrist.

I think this response says more about you than me.

Obviously the only correct answer to the poll is to furiously discuss it on NSG.

Galloism wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
Sure, but only breed females in flight and then males as you approach.

Now you’ve either got to sex separate your sperm before liftoff (can we do that?) or abort/kill all the wrong children.

Presuming we can’t do sex selective sperm, the former takes certain diagnostics and tools (increasing your weight, although it might be worth it) while the latter requires no special skills but extremely strong wills.

Also, we’d have to eat the body or use it as fertilizer in hydroponics.

I think we can just switch off the Y chromosome.

Not to mention, we really don’t have any idea what 13,000 years of women only society would even look like (this is longer than all of recorded history). It could actually arise a situation where men are seen as slaves or chattel, useful only for their muscles. Doubly so if it’s been passed down for 13,000 years that we will only have men when we need their muscles.

Yes, this is possibly fair, but that rests on your presumption that men are needed for their muscles. Having said that in surviving without men for 13, 000 years they might question as to whether they need men at all, or that in reproducing them they're seen as inferior.

However we're talking about a survival of the species situation and maximising that success, to an extent regardless of how that survival pans out.

Bombadil wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Except that's not the reality and will never be the reality. Your desire for a female-dominated society just makes you seem more misandrist.

I think this response says more about you than me.

You can tell yourself that if it helps.

Bombadil wrote:

Galloism wrote:Now you’ve either got to sex separate your sperm before liftoff (can we do that?) or abort/kill all the wrong children.

Presuming we can’t do sex selective sperm, the former takes certain diagnostics and tools (increasing your weight, although it might be worth it) while the latter requires no special skills but extremely strong wills.

Also, we’d have to eat the body or use it as fertilizer in hydroponics.

I think we can just switch off the Y chromosome.

I don’t think we can actually do that.

Not to mention, we really don’t have any idea what 13,000 years of women only society would even look like (this is longer than all of recorded history). It could actually arise a situation where men are seen as slaves or chattel, useful only for their muscles. Doubly so if it’s been passed down for 13,000 years that we will only have men when we need their muscles.

Yes, this is possibly fair, but that rests on your presumption that men are needed for their muscles. Having said that in surviving without men for 13, 000 years they might question as to whether they need men at all, or that in reproducing them they're seen as inferior.

However we're talking about a survival of the species situation and maximising that success, to an extent regardless of how that survival pans out.

The Orville did a bit on this.

https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Moclan

The species was all male, and being born female was considered a curse, as they didn’t have the capability men did, and they felt no need to have them.

I do not approve.


Edit: anyway, our chances of surviving until reaching the next solar system with current tech or even immediate future tech is pretty slim. Even in a planet destroying scenario we’d probably do better to do an orbit around the sun and try to maintain a space colony until the earth formed back up again.

Galloism wrote:

Pyta wrote:
I know what you're trying to say but it's fantastically wrong even within it's own, self-contained logic.

Like the reason that competition "works" to increase productivity is precisely because it increases stress on participants. The desire to win the small and nominal rewards creates it's own value within participants, who then stress about it, and can then develop grudges against their opponents. Go ask a car salesperson what they think of the other salespeople at the dealership. You're not going to get a rosy picture.

You are proposing that a mission to mars deliberately create conflict between crew members. It's outlandishly dumb.

I don’t think you’ve ever managed employees.

You might start with this as a quick primer:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2520123

I cannot, possibly, stress to you enough that the things you learned at the midwest regional office depot assistant managers conference at the hyatt regency in columbus ohio do not apply to a fucking mars mission.

Galloism wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
I think we can just switch off the Y chromosome.

I don’t think we can actually do that.

Yes, this is possibly fair, but that rests on your presumption that men are needed for their muscles. Having said that in surviving without men for 13, 000 years they might question as to whether they need men at all, or that in reproducing them they're seen as inferior.

However we're talking about a survival of the species situation and maximising that success, to an extent regardless of how that survival pans out.

The Orville did a bit on this.

https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Moclan

The species was all male, and being born female was considered a curse, as they didn’t have the capability men did, and they felt no need to have them.

I do not approve.

Sure, the Amazonians did fine though.

I might answer differently given length of flight, the longer the flight the more I might be inclined to include men.. part because our technology levels would be far greater by default. If was more short term and involved a flee to Mars or Titan, say, then I might dismiss this idea of a need for muscle and go solely with women.

Is there anything on ISS that requires male muscle?

Pyta wrote:

Galloism wrote:I don’t think you’ve ever managed employees.

You might start with this as a quick primer:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2520123

I cannot, possibly, stress to you enough that the things you learned at the midwest regional office depot assistant managers conference at the hyatt regency in columbus ohio do not apply to a fucking mars mission.

They even engage in friendly competition on the international space station.

Its really good fun.

Bombadil wrote:

Galloism wrote:
I don’t think we can actually do that.


The Orville did a bit on this.

https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Moclan

The species was all male, and being born female was considered a curse, as they didn’t have the capability men did, and they felt no need to have them.

I do not approve.

Sure, the Amazonians did fine though.

I might answer differently given length of flight, the longer the flight the more I might be inclined to include men.. part because our technology levels would be far greater by default. If was more short term and involved a flee to Mars or Titan, say, then I might dismiss this idea of a need for muscle and go solely with women.

Is there anything on ISS that requires male muscle?

Probably. One of the difficulties is when you need a lot of strength in a confined space, and the ISS has a lot of confined spaces. Otherwise, you could simply group the two or three average women it takes to equal one average man in upper body strength.

Flip side - women are physically smaller on average, so if you have something in a super confined space, an average woman might be able to reach it where an average man can’t.

We really are complementary to each other, physically.

Galloism wrote:

Pyta wrote:
I cannot, possibly, stress to you enough that the things you learned at the midwest regional office depot assistant managers conference at the hyatt regency in columbus ohio do not apply to a fucking mars mission.

They even engage in friendly competition on the international space station.

Its really good fun.

You will note, importantly, that the astronauts are not actually doing any kind of competition.

Just to go back, over the course of this thread, you have repeatedly asserted the blatant falsehood that women lack the upper body strength to perform what manual labor would be required on the mars mission, asserted that the minimum viable population of humans for genetic diversity would be 50 (easy to find that the actual number here is ~160 for a 20 generation mission and ~4,000 for a permanent one), decided that 16,000 years would be 45 generations (It would be much closer to 400 on the extremely low end) and are now talking about the importance of body strength on the international space station, despite the fact that the space station is in microgravity, and muscular atrophy in long term microgravity means that most people are too weak to do so much as walk.

You've been talking out your ass this entire thread and just getting huffy when you get called on it.

Pyta wrote:

Galloism wrote:They even engage in friendly competition on the international space station.

Its really good fun.

You will note, importantly, that the astronauts are not actually doing any kind of competition.

Just to go back, over the course of this thread, you have repeatedly asserted the blatant falsehood that women lack the upper body strength to perform what manual labor would be required on the mars mission, asserted that the minimum viable population of humans for genetic diversity would be 50 (easy to find that the actual number here is ~160 for a 20 generation mission and ~4,000 for a permanent one), decided that 16,000 years would be 45 generations (It would be much closer to 400 on the extremely low end) and are now talking about the importance of body strength on the international space station, despite the fact that the space station is in microgravity, and muscular atrophy in long term microgravity means that most people are too weak to do so much as walk.

You've been talking out your ass this entire thread and just getting huffy when you get called on it.

It does appear I missed a zero. My bad on that. I've had a little rum and can't do math so good.

Btw, on long term missions, astronauts exercise a shit ton for the very reason of muscular atrophy. ISS astronauts exercise 2 1/2 hours per day for this reason.

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/64249main_ffs_ ... trophy.pdf

Regarding friendly competition...

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/as ... I/amp.html

Anders said there was a friendly competition among the Apollo astronauts who all coveted the “gold ring” — becoming the first man to walk on the moon. “I would have been glad to beat him to it,” he acknowledged, “but NASA picked the best person of all of us to do the job.”

Surely you don't think Mars is more daunting now than the moon in the 1960s.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
Well.. I think that's technically the point of the OP.. if it was a given that only having females increased the chances of survival by, say, 50%.. would people still demand males are represented?

Except that's not the reality and will never be the reality. Your desire for a female-dominated society just makes you seem more misandrist.

A female only society sounds kinda retarded tbh.