Slashdot Mirror
Scientist Says NASA Must Study Space Sex
Velcroman1 writes "NASA has always been tight lipped on the subject of sex in space — which makes people all the more curious. How would it work? Has anyone done it before? Can a child be conceived in zero-G? With few animal tests (and virtually no human testing), there's been next to no scientific analysis of the issue. Until now. The Journal of Cosmology has published a special issue detailing the mission to Mars, which touches all the bases. In a chapter titled Sex on Mars, Dr. Rhawn Joseph from the Brain Research Laboratory in California discusses everything from the social conditions that would push astronauts to have sex to the possibility of the first child being born on another planet. Such an infant would be the first real Martian — at least by nationality, the researcher pointed out. 'On Mars, the light's going to be different, the gravity will be different, it's a completely different atmosphere,' he said. 'So if you put an infant on Mars, they would adapt to varying degrees of the new environment. And after several generations, you'd have a new species,' he said."
Michael Valentine Smith. Martian by mentality, human by heredity.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did Mars move for you too, baby?
I guess I wouldn't mind being the progenitor of a new species...
also, it would get me out of my mom's basement, and most likely result in meeting girls?
Sucky part is, I guess they don't have fiber-interweb-tubes on Mars?
~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
Beware the sand!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While you are technically correct, was there any real need to add the insult when correcting an obviously non-native English speaker for a poor choice in words?
It's not like "submerged in water" isn't a decent enough approximation (and in fact used by space agencies, but to model different stuff). It's not like humans aren't imaginative, if there's a possibility of some action... (even easier: send slashdotters, we'll do anything) Progress of the pregnancy is another issue of course.
But you wouldn't have new species if there wasn't much of a selection. Not for the usual meaning of "several"
One that hath name thou can not otter
That was my first thought, too. Even then, the actual evolutionary forces would be such that speciation seems so improbable as to be impossible. The environment for colonists would be almost entirely artificial, and it seems doubtful that the color of light on Mars would significantly impact children's ability to grow to adulthood and procreate themselves, especially not with a sample size that is small enough that it wouldn't also be cross-breeding with Earth's population.
The only real scenario I can come up with involves Mars being terraformed and then completely cut off from Earth somehow.
The first generation would not survive even one hour outside of the houses that have the exact same atmosphere as on earth.
Bah, that sounded a lot funnier in my head.
Sounds like a good job opportunity.
Why would anyone wonder about this? From how I see it (and from what I believe to know about the mechanics involved), why should a child not be conceived in zero-G?
When a woman orgasms, her cervix dips into (depending on the position) pool of seed the man released, sucking it in. The female anatomy then helps transport the material to where it belongs, where several spermatozoa work together to crack the female egg shell.
This process is in no way a battle between the little guys to see which is the strongest but a joint effort and the female organism helps them along, too. So while conception might be a bit trickier due to the whole process being slower because of not enough contact with the female anatomy (and thus more time-consuming, possibly to the point where the spermatozoa die before doing their job), I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible.
Eh, what?
Not that I disagree with your point (that they'd still be completely humans, with minor adaptations during growth comparable to i.e. Sherpas vs. the rest of us), but the atmosphere is no way going to be the same as Earth's; why in hell would you load up your dome (or other structure) with 2-3x the pressure stresses needed, and cost yourself more energy pumping airlocks, etc.?!
well, first and foremost I assume you need some sort of selection process to end up with a new species.
I understand that evolution is still happening to the human race, my mother (physician) told me that simply having 2 sexes allows for some sort of evolution.
but anyway, you're right in the sense that as long as we send people to Mars and they don't have a hard time (which would mean selection), than any speciation taking place would be due to selection of those who are sent, not the conditions on Mars.
just like people living at high altitudes are a bit special, but they're not a different species.
new sig
Come on, we all knew this had to happen eventually. I call Rule 34 on space!
The issue of illegal aliens will come up
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
ditto
If the objective were really to populate another planet wouldn't it make more sense to send a bunch of fertile women and a bunch of semen instead of males? The semen would be a lot lighter(big deal when you are talking space travel), require less resources to keep alive etc. Furthermore you could increase genetic variability by having semen from a bunch of males without increasing the number of people sent. Seems like we really are unnecessary guys :P
Monstar L
The Journal of Cosmology has published a special issue...which touches all the bases. In a chapter titled Sex on Mars...
Are we sure we got the right "Cosmo" here?
Tweet, tweet.
Its the only way to go, man.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
So where do we go to volunteer for this project? I'll totally take a hit for the human race and impregnate a chick in space.
Virtually no human testing? Given the kind of person who gets into the astronaut corps, I seriously doubt that. There's probably been no official investigation into this done, but when you coop seven mixed-gender, highly intelligent, very curious, extremely goal-driven, competitive problem-solvers up in a small ship for the lengths of time a shuttle mission runs, I think we can pretty much guarantee there's been plenty of unofficial investigations conducted. And there's been IIRC several mixed-gender ISS crews, so ditto there.
I also suspect they've found the entire exercise to be awkward, exhausting (and not in the good way), inconvenient to arrange around all the monitoring that's done, difficult to keep private in those cramped quarters, and generally an awful lot of work for a lot less reward than you'd expect. But if anybody wants to go to Mars they're going to have to figure out how to deal with sex and how to make it reasonably convenient, because no crew's going to remain completely celibate that long.
Mach 20
There have been some amusing studies on quail and development in microgravity. It was hypothesized that gravity might be necessary for proper development. I haven't read any papers on it, but I've heard the embryos seemed pretty normal. Suggests that human embryos might develop normally too.
Not entirely surprising. Embryos and their mothers or eggs carrying them can be oriented any way with no obvious defects in development. I mean, I'm guessing not many pregnant women will want to stand on their heads for a long time to determine if there would be problems in space, but my point is there doesn't seem to be a "right" up and down orientation, which you might expect if gravity were playing a role in development.
Same goes for conception. There are plenty of urban legends about conception and sex position, but if gravity were essential for conception, I'd expect we'd know which way it had to be pulling for conception to happen. If, for example, you had to be laying down for sperm to know which direction to swim, you'd think it would be common knowledge that if you remain standing after sex, you won't get pregnant. That doesn't seem to be the case, and it's hard for me to imagine how gravity could be essential to conception but -wouldn't- need to have a specific orientation to contribute.
They could start by interviewing their astronauts, for it already happened.
Not that I disagree with your point (that they'd still be completely humans, with minor adaptations during growth comparable to i.e. Sherpas vs. the rest of us), but the atmosphere is no way going to be the same as Earth's; why in hell would you load up your dome (or other structure) with 2-3x the pressure stresses needed, and cost yourself more energy pumping airlocks, etc.?!
I recall reading of a study that indicates Sherpas are genetically different from the rest of us, and not simply adapted to high altitudes by virtue of having grown up there. I believe they found some grown-up, American-born children of Nepalese parents who had emigrated, and took them back to Nepal and none of them suffered from altitude sickness at all.
I think there would be a slight natural selection pressure - with those better able to tolerate martian conditions being healthier, and therefore more attractive to the opposite sex (supposing that the colonists were not sent as pre-selected breeding pairs). There's also a possibility that some women would have difficulty conceiving or carrying a child to term on Mars. Those genes would obviously be selected against.
I think a stronger selection pressure would be against some more "mundane" diseases that we can treat easily on Earth but would be a death sentence in a minimally-equipped space colony. Any kind of renal failure and you're probably done for. Diabetes and haemophilia (not that the latter is particularly common) would probably be very troublesome too.
Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
It would probably be safest to simply allow sex, since it's going to happen anyway, you might as well regulate it to make sure it does not go out of control. Married couples are probably the best bet, even though nothing's for certain. I think that the likelihood of divorce probably decreases when you bear the responsibility of causing a Mars mission to fail.
To avoid accidental pregnancy, simply sterilize the men, it's a simple procedure.
Then, if the goal is to colonize Mars and actually have pregnancies there, transport the frozen semen of the husbands to inseminate their wives, along with frozen semen from other men to use with some of the female offspring to avoid incest.
There, all problems solved!
This wouldn't even happen.
We'd be working very hard to recreate Earth-like conditions on Mars, so the infant would grow accustomed to Earth-like conditions. Otherwise, everyone would die.
Please, do correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm no expert, but I would have thought that messing with things like atmosphere, diet etc would make the life expectancy of the parents quite short.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Speciation will not occur under (presumed) regular interbreeding with the population back home.
I knew a couple who really wanted to have kids. The woman had difficulty getting pregnant, and then she had some miscarriages. I was in tears when she told me about the experiences. Her husband is a very wealthy man from Altona, near Hamburg in Germany. The homes in Altona make Hollywood mansions look like a trailer park. She told me that she felt pressure to 'produce' a male heir.
So she took some 'fertility' pills, and a beautiful baby boy came out. But she developed breast cancer six months later, and died from it.
Back to on topic. Can you imagine the pressure of being on Mars, and expected to give birth to a child? Larry King would come back from retirement, and set up a camera team on Mars in your bedroom: "Well, the penis seems to be in the vagina, but we still don't have a pregnancy yet . . ."
I think stress plays a role. When they send some folks on a one way trip to Mars, I guess we will see.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Speciation doesn't require selection pressure, it only requires that part of the population reproduces independently for sufficient generations. In the case of humans a generation is typically 20 or 25 years, and 'sufficient generations' depends on the size of the isolated population. Smaller populations drift genetically much faster than large, well-mixed populations. But several thousand generations would be needed as a minimum. So we're looking at somewhere in the region of 40 000 to 50 000 years or more for a new species of human to arise.
Selection pressures cause genetic drift to move in particular directions rather than in random directions. They don't *cause* speciation though they do guide the kinds of change that take place.
Hope that helps.
What if, instead of being all afraid of "o my god, they might have sex", you embrace the issue and actually send people who are very open about sex, maybe couples who are used to partner swapping and foursomes etc.
No stress, no "cheating" (since it's not), sex is just something you do, like a sport. It wouldn't be hard to find people like that. Of course you should still avoid zero-G pregnancy, but contraceptives or sterilization are not exactly rocket science.
On top of that, as an added bonus, video feeds from the mission can serve to provide funding for several further missions!
And that's not the only thing wrong with the article. Like most /.'ers I saw the headline with a mix of amusement and interest and (I know I'm not supposed to), I clicked on the link and RTFA. I was expecting something that was actually an academic paper. But it's filled with shallow analysis, dubious logic and woeful amounts of inappropriate extrapolation. (I mean do we really need to have the extra-marital affair of two astronauts detailed and discussed to use as support for arguments in the general case). And, though I rarely ever use the word these days except when talking about some foreign cultures, the article even manages to come across as sexist since the majority of it seems to be written from the perspective of whether to include females in space flights with the rationale that females cause sex! (Note to critics, it is the combination of these two things that triggers a response of 'sexist'. In my experience, men also, uh, cause sex).
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Indeed, humans have Borg-like powers of genetic adaptation, so that several generations of living in an extraterrestrial habitat that has been technologically rendered as Earth-like as possible would cause them to spontaneously mutate to the point of sexual incompatibility with normal humans (the normal definition of separate species).
For large values of several.
Not to mention a non-standard definition of "species." As I seem to recall, the biological definition of "species" simply involves whether or not a male and female can create a sexually viable offspring. Hence, donkeys and horses are different species, because mules (what you get when mating a horse and a donkey) are sterile, but different breeds of dogs (or cats or horses or whatever) aren't considered different species because they do create offspring which create offspring and so on (have your pets spayed or neutered!)
I'm really hoping the ESL author meant "race" instead of "species," because even after "large values of several," you'd probably still only end up with a race of Martian humans that are as different from us as our different racial groups are from each other - differences being mostly skin deep.
This kind of talk can only end in bukkake.
Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids
In fact it's cold as hell
And there's no one there to raise them if you did
I like this.. a slight selection pressure for tolerance to pressure..
Seems like a lot of people here know exactly how the mechanism of speciation works. Care to enlighten the rest of us? Maybe you should write to a science journal.
any difficulties associated with sexual intercourse in space may turn out to be an easily solved problem of docking and entry as human are notorious for inventing ways of having sex despite all manner of logistical impediments
Oh the insinuations are infinite!
That jumped out at me as well. And I'm not sure that it is just ambiguity over the meaning of 'several': The way he mentions it right after infants adapting to the different conditions, I think...I think he's actually implying Lamarckian evolution is the driving force.
Rather than just the intercourse aspect, I would like to see studies on the development in the womb and childbirth whilst in zero-g. Understand the effects of zero-to-lighter than earth gravity will have on the baby's development.
So... are we linking to fox news now? News for nerds... stuff that matters?... really?
Phenotypical adaptations would exhibit within a single generation. Genetic adaptations, if any, would take many thousand generations, and enough to cause speciation would take many times longer than that, even if the effect of immigration from earth were ignored.
Bah, that sounded a lot funnier in my head.
Now that's the comment that is going to get modded 'funny'.
I would prefer if they stay tight-lipped. :-)
Tight is definitely a plus!
Rhawn Joseph is an utter bluff whose academic merits and opinions are as empty as his writings. Check your sources before posting please.
mod parent informative.
and thanks.
new sig
"And after several generations, you'd have a new species,' he said."
I seriously doubt he said that, or he is not a biologist worth its salt (no I did not read the *fox news* article). The only way to have a new specie , is only if there are mutation which happens to make the new baby to be more adapted to the new environment, and this is selected for, NOT because they grow there and are getting use to the environment (in the latest case, such a person having baby on earth would have baby identical to any other human). I seriously doubt this would happen in several generation only, most probably you would need much more by 1 or 2 order of magnitude to see a real new specie.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
" And after several generations, you'd have a new species".
Erm, unlikely.
After several 1000 generations, if children with mutations are allowed to develop, you may have a new species.
America, Home of the Brave.
Tests were actually done on the "upsuck" theory and its been proven incorrect
http://www.ted.com/talks/mary_roach_10_things_you_didn_t_know_about_orgasm.html
Seems like we really are unnecessary guys
I would beg to differ with, sir.
History can document the fact that women actually LIKE SEX. Think about that a little, do some research even.
Whether you attribute it to 'God made it that way', 'Mother Nature/Giaa intended it that way', we're hard-wired for the continuation of our species, or whatever, it is a recognizable and documented fact that both genders of the human species have been almost obsessed with sex and reproduction from day one.
*now I tap-dance on the hyperbole line*
It is also well documented that there are inherent differences between human genders:
we males are seemingly hard-wired physically and mentally to be larger and stronger, territorial, and agressive to help further the chances of our species survival. The female gender seems to be hard-wired to use these traits to our species survival advantage.
I see this apparent in the Yin-Yang philosophy most profoundly...male and female being constructs that both seem to be opposites, yet complimentary to the 'whole' of humanity.
Or to use a different example:
*disclaimer* I am a 'Country-Boy', not a 'city boy'.
While the alpha-male Grizzly may rule his Territory/Domain, even he does not mess with Mama-Bear and her young/cubs with impunity.
On a more personable anecdote,
I have seen a Highland Scottish Terrier mother[with a mongrel border collie/timid father] @ 8Kg., defend her litter quite aggressively and effectively against an 80 KG. Alaskan Malamute. The 80 Kg. AM male tucked his tail and fled the scene, yet over-all, he dominated the territory.
Screwy social dynamics, and instructive, if you ask me.
*Offtopic: For my fellow USAians:
Mama Dog weighed in at about 16-20 pounds, the Malamute weighed in at around 160-180 pounds. Yes, I am USAian, but I am more comfortable with the metric system:-)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You would have no new species in Mars at all, since evolution is based in competition for life and death of the less adapted ones, which does not happen with humans anymore. We make devices to adapt ourselves to diverse circumstances so humans don't die because of being not adapted to environments unless a mutation makes some specimens fit for such environments and survive, by consequence, we don't evolve into new species. Some people in the NASA obviously need to review the evolution theory.
I have a hard time imagining that we would be willing or able to develop the infrastructure for children to grow up on Mars anytime soon. It is one thing to send (adult) astronauts to Mars, they can wear the same sized space suit pretty much until they die. But if you send a child (or a pregnant woman) to Mars, the growing child will need far more of everything in order to survive. I understand that space suits are not exactly cheap to manufacture here on earth - can you imagine trying to make on one Mars? And if a child on Mars grew at anywhere near the rate they grow on Earth, the wait time to ship a new suit from Earth would likely be completely unacceptable.
And that says nothing about the piles of diapers, or the need for something resembling a proper education, or proper pediatric care and nutrition...
I just don't see it being reasonable to have children on Mars until we have a sizable established population of adults there for a reasonably long time. And at that, we might want to wait until we have figured out the round trip (although a long car ride with a child can be infuriating - I can't imagine what interplanetary transport would be like!).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1) Citation needed. Children of single mothers/lesbian parents/work-away-from-home fathers develop perfectly normally.
2) Sperm from a male is not necessary at all, the reason you can't combine two eggs are epigenetic and progress has been made in recent years. Some bright sparks amongst you would notice that two woman would only be able to have daughters (but if they were conceived and raised without men this isn't really a problem).
Personally, I go around tightening jars as opening them seems to be my only role as a man :-p
I demand references on the testing that practically/literally did occur, that would justify your use of "virtually".
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
after several generations you'd have a new species
For large values of several.
Idiot.
And only if the individuals less adapted to this environment are killed / not allowed to breed. If there is no natural selection and no artificial selection, apparition of a new species is very unlikely.
It would have been funny on my planet.
Could I be so bold as to satisfy all your concerns with one word?
"wooooosh"
I thought it was all very amusing. I read it a week or so ago and when I saw it appear on Slashdot I thought, heh, that'll be some idle entertainment. But now I see indignant criticisms about veracity! The whole thing is a joke! .... right? If, by some gross miscomprehension I'm wrong, then wow, some pearlers have gone begging there.
* Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool *
I volunteer to help NASA scientists with this study! Now they just need to shoot me in space and find me some sex partners, all in the name of science!
Why is it that every time someone writes an article about procreation in space, they bring up the microgravity question over and over? I get that they're basing their assumptions off of the technology that we use now, but seriously, this stuff isn't going to happen with the technology we use now. It'll be using technology of the future, near or distant. A space station utilizing rotational gravity via centrifugal acceleration can be made to simulate Earth gravity. Slow it down a little and suddenly you have Martian gravity. Slow it down a little more and you've got Lunar gravity. No reason to dip yourself in a gravity well.
Yes, a space station that uses centrifugal acceleration is complicated and would be expensive by today's standards, but again, think about 50 or 75 years in the future. The ISS will be deorbited by then. Will they stop there, or will they make another one? What features and advantages will it have over the ISS? How long with the ISS II be up there? Will they build another one after that? What features will that generation of space station have?
I don't think we'll have to worry about procreation in space for the near future. Right now it's more of a scientific curiosity than an actual need, but that will change if we continue to expand into space. By that point our space technologies will have advanced to the point where it will no longer be a concern.
Several *thousand* generations. Evolution doesn't work that quick, unless Mars is made of Mutagen-x.
And, though I rarely ever use the word these days except when talking about some foreign cultures, the article even manages to come across as sexist since the majority of it seems to be written from the perspective of whether to include females in space flights with the rationale that females cause sex! (Note to critics, it is the combination of these two things that triggers a response of 'sexist'. In my experience, men also, uh, cause sex).
History of space exploration is a history of man. First man in space, first man on the moon. Most likely first man on Mars. It's fair assumption that we will be adding women to men teams not the other way.
In short: don't be so politically correct. Man and woman are different, they behave differently, they have differnt physical abilities. Giving women right to vote is good thing but it doesn't make them magically equal to man in every way. And by saying that I don't mean women are inferior - they are just different.
virtually no human testing
And how do they know?
Those differences mean squat for a single life, but they might mean a lot even over a relatively small number generations especially if the population is small. 3 or 4 generations down the line you might discover Mars bound humans are smaller, have weaker muscles and jaws, have intolerances to certain proteins (e.g. in meat) , have a different circadian rhythm, weaker immune systems, poorer sense of smell & taste and a whole bunch of other changes for better or worse. Maybe nothing in themselves which class them as species, but certainly genetic drift.
Of course if humans are coming & going between Mars & Earth it probably makes no damned difference since there will be no chance for changes to meaningfully accumulate.
It was created by a nutjob at UC San Diego [C. Gibson] who can't get his work published in refereed journals, because it's absolute shit. So he created a 'journal' that's pay-to-play, and has no actual peer review credentials (sorry, but quacks reviewing quacks doesn't count).
The Two Suit was one of the subjects of History Channel's The Universe "Sex in Space" documentary. They only demonstrated it in a zero-g aircraft but it seemed to potentially work there and it think it would be easier to use the suit in space than in the aircraft. That sould take care of the sex-part at least :)
The porn spoof "The Uranus Experiment" contains several zero-g sex scenes (using parabolic flight) so sex in zero-g must at least be physically possible
As a small sidenote, sex is also perfectly possible with only one gender present, it's only procreation that's going to be a bit of a challenge.
Also, how long have people been on the ISS ? It seems a bit, well, naieve to think the 100-mile high club hasn't been founded by now. Well, 220 mile, really, but, you know.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
I fully endorse Mr. Ron Jeremy for this position. He has a lifetime of experience in this arena. It doesn't matter where it takes place, he'll get the job done.
Rhawn Joseph is a well known quack. Emeritus, Brain Research, Northern California, Indeed!
1) Says you. Myself and several other single-parent friends have plenty of others that don't seem to be as prevalent with our two-parent friends. :/
2) Hurray for genetic diversity
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
We sure don't need that, we already have sensational slashdot editors completely lacking in the office of gravity. Fortunately it's 04:00 and I don't have the physical energy to hammer my brains out, though this troll caption gave me good incentive.
Check out "The Uranus Project" (1, 2, or 3) for a case study.
"1) Citation needed. Children of single mothers/lesbian parents/work-away-from-home fathers develop perfectly normally."
Citation needed.
Jebeeeesus etch crisis, I have to kick this cat again.
What's the difference between a nerd and a retard? One of them can tie a Windsor knot, but I forget which.
1) Citation needed. Children of single mothers/lesbian parents/work-away-from-home fathers develop perfectly normally.
Depending on what you consider normal. Physiologically, sure, but psychologically, male role models turn out to be pretty important for the development of boys. It doesn't have to be the father, but with a lack of men in child care and primary education, some boys grow up seeing hardly any men before they're 12, and it turns out that that's actually causing problems.
2) Sperm from a male is not necessary at all, the reason you can't combine two eggs are epigenetic and progress has been made in recent years. Some bright sparks amongst you would notice that two woman would only be able to have daughters (but if they were conceived and raised without men this isn't really a problem).
I guess not having any boys born would solve that problem.
I would suggest sending Antonio Cromartie on the trip to Mars. Offspring will ensue. Many, many offspring....
send men to mars and women to venus
venus is hot and unbearable, mars is cold and barren
well, ok then, i see your point, send men to venus and women to mars
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sending certain members of the female gender to Mars would be totally awesome. Can we start with Justin Bieber?
To deny our own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human.
$action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
Wait...women have orgasms?
astronauts in zero g lose muscle mass and bone density, even with exercise. in martian gravity, similar effects are likely
and don't talk about conception and birth on mars, because the effects of low g on fetal development probably won't be good, nevermind normal bone and muscle development in childhood. the whole idea of creating new species sounds neat, but really all you are going to wind up creating is some brittle easily broken people who may not be able to lift themselves on mars, nevermind never able to go to earth, ever, without getting crushed in normal earth atmosphere
colonize venus first. at the cloud tops, venus is isothermal with earth, isobaric with earth, has an induced magnetosphere (no windows on mars, just concrete blocks, unless you like cancer), lots of solar energy to put to use on venus... and most importantly, the gravity is just about the same as earth. if you are wondering how you will get people to stay at the cloud tops, consider that earth atmosphere is a lifting gas on venus, like helium is a lifting gas on earth. meaning a cloud city is a balloon that can be lived in. maybe spin carbon nanotubes from the plentiful carbon dioxide atmosphere to make the cloud cities, and use the oxygen from that to breathe, all powered by a bright sun
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So if your mum birthed you in zero-g, would that make her a baby cannon?
Maybe NASA should talk to the Russian about this I'm sure they've done a few experiments on this subject matter at some point
Looking forward to money shots in space.. it'll allow all sorts of variations on the activity. ..rule 34..
My impressions was that this "scientist" seems to believe in Lamarkian Evolution, probably because he doesn't have a very good grasp of how evolution actually works.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Speciation doesn't require selection pressure, it only requires that part of the population reproduces independently for sufficient generations. In the case of humans a generation is typically 20 or 25 years, and 'sufficient generations' depends on the size of the isolated population. Smaller populations drift genetically much faster than large, well-mixed populations. But several thousand generations would be needed as a minimum. So we're looking at somewhere in the region of 40 000 to 50 000 years or more for a new species of human to arise.
Selection pressures cause genetic drift to move in particular directions rather than in random directions. They don't *cause* speciation though they do guide the kinds of change that take place.
Hope that helps.
And that is how we got the Irish.
In the quoted part of the story, the author has the presumption that the baby would be exposed to the Martian environment. I thing that lack of a magnetic field on Mars might dent that reproductive ability fairly quickly. The lack of oxygen, much quicker.
Home of The Suki Series
Rhawn Joseph is a sham whose academic merits and opinions are so ill founded that ANYONE should be able to spot it. Please check your sources before posting!
Such an infant would be the first real Martian — at least by nationality
Unless Mars has a law against anchor babies.
Yes, but it wasn't from being concieved in space, it was from being raised by Martians.
I'm going to have to dig that book out, I haven't read it in fifteen or twenty years.
Free Martian Whores!
So now we've gone from evolution taking millions of years to 'several generations' to develop a 'new species?' Give me a break.
Emanuelle in Space has already explored some of the possibilities.
Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
I seem to be having this tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle.
Free Martian Whores!
Not enough bleach for that thought. Not enough bleach. You do know what happens to fluids in a microgravity environment, right?
I thought I remembered reading something about mice, and I found this article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006753 From the summary, it looks like there's a chance it would work, but given that less than the usual amount of embryos made it, and other things they observed, they're not sure conception would play out in space. We may need to send the Mars colonists with a few Dewer jars full of frozen embryos.
I guess you have forgotten exactly why he was left an orphan and raised as a Martian.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
That might change the timescale, but it doesn't change the end result. The differences between a Martian and Terrestrial environment would ultimately drive different selection modes, even if initial "adaptations" are more simply expressions of developmental differences such as lower gravity reducing bone density or whatever that are not the result of any real genetic change.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
If they can play Barry White over the space craft's public address system then everything should go smoothly. But it seems rather cruel to raise a child 34,000,000 miles from the nearest playground.
If we're really planning on colonizing Mars, and/or any other place out there, it might be best to send missions *primarily* for the purposes of reproductive research. As soon as everything is locked down and stable after landing, it's fun time. For everybody. All at once. In the same big sleeping bag. The first major structure should be an underground hospital with a huge maternal wing, Humans are going to need to get over some of their squeamishness and romanticism if they are to spread out into space.
I'd mod you up for getting a nice Heinlein first post, but you've gone and reversed his name (Valentine Michael Smith)
>As I seem to recall, the biological definition of "species" simply involves whether or not a male and female can create a sexually viable offspring.
The are a great number of definitions of species, that is one of them. And eventually, yes, you could get a new species (by whatever definition), but it would take a lot more than "several" generations.
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
And by saying that I don't mean women are inferior - they are just different.
Indeed, and most of us here love to keep looking at the differences
---
I guess the thought of having sex on mars is what gets some scientists through the night...
This guy and his fake "Journal of Cosmology" is a lune. The joke is on slashdot for even putting this in the science category.
-- PGP keyID: 0x4C95994D
which version? i've just started reading the uncut version.
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
...adventurers. Only men are natural adventurers. Female humans by nature are "nesters" and the way their bodies' hormones control their brains, an all-female space travel expedition will stand vastly less probability of success against any adverse situation that comes up that was not explicitly planned for, such as unforeseen mechanical breakdowns of the spacecraft, collision with space debris, or dare I say it.... an encounter with hostile occupants of a spacecraft from either Earth or "somewhere else".
...Smaller populations drift genetically much faster than large...
But the population needs to be large enough to provide sufficient choice in copulating. Assuming everyone has roughly the same chance of reaching maturity, it is the choice in selecting a mate that drives genetic drift.
(Slashdotters may not be a good group for discussing choice of mate. Sorry guys.)
He also suggests the world will end in 2012 as supposedly predicted by the Mayans
Well, it's true for me at leat -- the world as I know it will end in December 2012. That's when I'm eligible to retire.
Free Martian Whores!
As much as a flaming douchebag as mcgrew typically is ;) he is DEAD ON WITH THIS ONE.
But several thousand generations would be needed as a minimum. So we're looking at somewhere in the region of 40 000 to 50 000 years or more for a new species of human to arise
I'd say even longer than that. Native Americans immigrated from Asia what, thirty thousand years ago? Yet they're not a different species from Africans or Europeans; not much different at all from any other race.
Free Martian Whores!
Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.
Sufficiently-large environmental differences may result in a significantly different phenotype, though. So while actual speciation might take a very long time, it's possible that a child born and raised on Mars might be physically different from an Earth child. I would expect the decreased gravity to have an effect on bone development, for example.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Probably they would use some kind of artificial incemination to get a baby.
Married couples might use sex for psychological and physiological reasons. Being cooped up for such a long time. It might take their minds off of it. If they were new married. If not new then it might make things worse.
Probably mission control would not want to just let things go willy nilly. Or half cocked.
Everything would be planned out to the nth degree.
So, if being born in the USA automagically grants Citizenship, would the first child born ON Mars, be the 1st and therefore only Martian Citizen?
Would they then own the whole dang planet? If so, I apply to be the dad!
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Earth-like? Which part of Earth?
Also, recreating Earth-like conditions won't change the fact they would be living in 1/3rd gravity, which would definitely invoke some selection pressure.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Women are different, different in ways that likely make them better at space travel in the long term. They generally weigh less, are smaller and consume less food/water/air than men. Take all that and the fuel cost to lift that extra mass, and the extra mass of extra fuel into account and the difference in cost between sending a man or woman to mars could be an order of magnitude.
Sex has happened in space, but it has not been studied specifically. IIRC the first time was a couple of Russian men. It isn't widely discussed.
Not that extra-marital sex is necessarily a problem either, but there has been at least one married couple who have been into space together too. That said, most of the shuttle flights are so hectic that getting a chance to snuggle usually isn't in the cards.
Sex on the ISS, on the other hand, may be a bit more likely and there certainly have been some opportunities so to say. On the other hand, the general population that has been up there has been for the most part rather small.... usually just three people most of the time. They have also been older folks with previous commitments and selected for their serious nature. In other words they aren't young folks with raging hormones and a strong desire to mate with any available opportunity. Those astronauts are also quite busy and usually have their schedules nailed down to the minute for many operations. There is some "down time" for personal pet projects or for R&R, but even that is rather strongly programmed.
With 10 years of opportunity, however, to say that it has never happened at all even on just one occasion seems to be a stretch of the imagination. The "personal bunkers" (essentially the size of a walk-in closet but intended as the "bedrooms" for the permanent astronauts) are large enough to fit at least two people into them.
My impressions was that this "scientist" seems to believe in Lamarkian Evolution, probably because he doesn't have a very good grasp of how evolution actually works.
I was under the impression that he believed in pokemon evolution.
Maybe Velcro could help. If the couple wore Velcro armbands and leg bands then they'd have some anchoring. Or perhaps the armbands might have magnets in them. Thing it is hard to be completely naked under water or in space without some sort of anchoring garment.
They also bleed uncontrollably once a month without proper medication.
Also, recreating Earth-like conditions won't change the fact they would be living in 1/3rd gravity, which would definitely invoke some selection pressure.
Unless they live in a spinning, slightly angled base (that doubles as a flywheel).
History of space exploration is a history of man. First man in space, first man on the moon.
You're not very good at history, are you?
First man to die on takeoff was a woman. First man to die on re-entry was also a woman (even though there were men on both flights, they all died together).
"Men in space" lasted only two years. First man in space, Yuri Gagarin 1961, a month before Alan Shephard. First woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, 1963.
Free Martian Whores!
The question here is in terms of how many generations it took to develop Sherpas with these genetic traits. It certainly didn't happen in just one generation, at least I find it highly unlikely that the first groups of people living in the environment where the Sherpas live to have adapted immediately with their kids.
The Sherpas were also in an isolated environment that was generally spared the ravages of warfare common to other parts of the world, thus they also were able to develop these traits without having the local gene pool get "contaminated" with people from other parts of the world.
In terms of Martians (humans living on Mars), I highly doubt that the isolation is going to happen unless there is a nuclear war on the Earth that also halts interplanetary spaceflight for several generations. I suppose that is also a possibility, but that is also strongly in the realm of science fiction and not something that should be expected except as a remote contingency plan.
http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF248-Transmission.jpg
Help fight spam
So you're suggesting we take Mars by having anchor babies?
The gravity on Mars won't be the same. The hours of daylight.... while similar to the Earth are going to be slightly different. Trace mineral concentrations are going to be different for Martian soil. Dangers to people living on Mars are also going to be different in terms of "natural disasters" that could happen. Hurricanes, tsunamis, thunder storms, tornadoes, and perhaps even things like earthquakes and volcanoes are things that won't be seen on Mars, but there will be other phenomena that will happen on Mars that will definitely not be "Earth-like".
Yes, I do realize that volcanoes exist on Mars, but they are fairly dormant. It would be news indeed if a volcano was to erupt on Mars... so that would be an excellent question to study in terms of how "areologically speaking" (as opposed to geologically speaking) the interior of Mars shows activity. From first glance, it appears to be dead, but then again everybody thought the Cascade range of the Pacific North-west of North America was geologically dead too.
Of significance too is that the air pressure on Mars is likely to be different than that of the Earth, even in the habitats. While oxygen and CO2 levels will have to be maintained, it seems to be silly to include other elements of the Earth's atmosphere like Nitrogen and Argon unless they are really necessary, at least at first.
Think of it this way. You aren't going to be able to have all the women pregnant at the same time, since there is physical labor to be done that is best avoided when pregnant. And nursing a young child will also take time away from the other necessary tasks for survival. Thus you can only have a certain percentage of women pregnant at once, and so the rest of the people could be either men or women. Exchanging some of the women out for men wouldn't be increasing the travel weight. Furthermore, you can send eggs just as easily as you can send sperm, so you wouldn't be decreasing genetic diversity by sending some men instead of all women.
Considering we'll probably be doing a good amount of terraforming to make a planet like Mars inhabitable, lets just call them Terrans =D.
...and if the Martian child comes back to earth, he can start a revolution with a religious cult and become a stranger in a strange land.
The Journal of Cosmology is a fringe publication and Josephs is a creationist and obvious misogynist. Lines like "If women accompany men on a mission to Mars, are they at risk for rape? Or is the greater risk, falling in love and getting pregnant?" is strikingly offensive. This isn't a paper about sex in space, it's about treating women (or, as Joseph's seems to sometimes prefer, "female primates") as sex resources to be properly managed by inevitably male mission commanders. This is thoroughly repugnant.
Of course, one needs only look at Joseph's website, where he quotes his own Amazon reviews and speaks floridly of running with wolves to see that this is a serious scholar.
www.brainmind.com/publications.html
There will be plenty of time for space sex during my one way trip to mars :D
NASA has too many prudes amongst its enemies to ever get this idea off the ground (literally). However, it would be a prime candidate for a privately funded, manned (and womened) flight. With the right sponsorship (who? Durex, sex.com, Penthouse?) and maybe even film rights, books and TV it could even make a profit. You never know, they may even be some solid science comes out of the project too.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
as I read this, I can see the real dificulty of the goal, which will be to find a girl who wants to spend several years with a bunch of geeks telling them how "different not inferior" they are and "looking at the differences"... ahem
Sorry you got modded down. You should have been modded up.
Foolish statement in a frivolous article.
You will form part of the control group. Your role will be to stay on earth and not have sex.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
It's unfortunate that someone decided to mod the parent as 'troll' - regardless of whatever native language this "scientist" speaks, "several" would have to be exceedingly large, and there would have to be a process in place to keep non-optimal martian children from having sex (which is ironically what this whole conversation is largely about). It is truly sad the utter lack of understanding of differential reproductive success and just general natural selection knowledge this individual exhibits, and this is compounded by him using his credentials as... some kind of scientist, and then reporting incorrect impressions of a separate field. Since he said it to a reporter, he presumably actually believes this account of evolution, which isn't particularly encouraging, but often even other biologists have a tenuous grasp on natural selection and only hear about it in a watered-down version in a couple undergrad classes. He is, as per parent, an "idiot," and an embarrassment.
Whoever came up with this idea that they'd be a whole new species is kinda like the "FRIST p0st!!!1!" people. Are you really that desperate to be first, that you'll say something that has no value whatsoever? We could call people in Alaska a different species just because they've adapted to colder weather. They're still a frikin Human! Calling someone who is 100% human a different species just because they're used to a different gravity level is perhaps the dumbest thing I've heard. I resent that this man receives any taxpayer money.
Two words: frog DNA!
Also, protip: "naive" is "evian" spelled backwards (without the diaeresis) and vice versa! Unless you're using "e" to signify the diaeresis, which is kinda smart actually.
after several generations you'd have a new species
For large values of several.
Idiot.
Actually the number isn't that large before selective breeding can induce substantial changes (about 10 to domesticate wild foxes), and we've seen recent results that suggest the Lamarckian ideas of acquired traits is not without merit (if you hadn't been keeping up, the basic idea is that while DNA determines most of the inherited traits, the epigenetic stuff -- the molecules that surround the DNA and determine things like which genes are activated can be modified by parental experience and passed to the offspring -- has an influence as well). Since low gravity is a huge change in environment, it would not surprise me to see that 3rd or 4th generation humans bred on Mars would be really, really different from their Terrestrial ancestors. They certainly would have different skeletons. It also, for the same reasons, wouldn't surprise me if the lifetime for native-borns changed as well, heart disease was completely different, cancer rates were different, etc.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Someone give this guy an evolution primer.
They would only adapt to mars after several generations if...
1) Some were better at having more babies.
2) Some were dying and having no babies.
The more extreme 1 or 2 is, the faster the adaption.
Humans won't adapt if their procreation isn't affected.
Society greatly slows down adaption these days because the one guy who is well adapted to mars doesn't get to have 73 children. Instead the ill suited guys also have ill adapted children and slow the process down. The same applies some to women but less so.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Where can we sign up?
Taking volunteers?
It sounds like you have had a lot of experience with this subject. Me thinking you are probably 150k years old or more..
what is this "sex" of which you speak?
http://chimpbox.us
well, a couple hundred thousand years for the "new" primate species of which we are all a member.
Perhaps I have mistaken how evolution works, however, just having babies in space or elsewhere is not enough to evolve a new species. You need selective pressures which only allow certain individuals to survive. I doubt very much that babies born off-world will face such a high mortality rate that many will not survive to have children of their own.
Not a problem...if she swallows!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
fresh is better than stale. just staying.
Secondly, look how it was done in the past. 1600s in America, or at least Canada. Men came here first as traders. Women were sent over later.. Similarly on Mars. A viable colony needs to be established *before* any talk about kids. Kids suck in resources for years before they can contribute. That is something that is not desired when you need every resource for a few years to just survive. After you have a stable environment, it's go time..
This is why the world needs a British space program.
Americans will never allow their tax dollars to fund studies of sex in space, because it might not be between a husband and a wife, or result in procreation.
In Zero-G the number of potential positions is much greater than is possible in a One-G environment.
NASA, count me in as a candidate for the trials.
This could only go two ways:
1) Occasional replenishment of the Martian explorer supply, which would probably result in a slower drift toward a new species.
2) Martian hillbillies.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
However, speciation can also occur when the differences in appearance between two groups of the same species make the members of each group so unattractive to each other that they choose not to breed with each other.
In an environment like Mars with significant differences in gravity, atmosphere, and sunlight, significant differences in height, build and skintone could occur in a very few generations; perhaps as quickly as a hundred years.
And can have mental problems locked in small space. I know some women prefer to work with men because of conflicts between women.
Teoretically women are physically better as pilots (thay can survive higher Gs than man) but still most of pilots are men.
Astronauts are often partially scientists. Science (maths, physics, engeneering) is not very popular with women. Women prefer "soft" science: psychology, philology etc.
I can't really see how women only team of astronauts would work. Men only teams had proven itself, already.
First man to die on takeoff was a woman. First man to die on re-entry was also a woman
Sounds like a success record. Are you sure there are no better examples? :-)
Tereshkova was sent into space exactly because it was politically correct to do. Soviets had first man and wanted first woman in space. Also comunists tried to make women "equal" to man often forcing them to do man-jobs (like miners).
just different http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded_images/mario-children-749731.jpg
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Not a problem...if he or she swallows!!
FTFY.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Just the act alone would require a LOT of Velcro.
Indeed, and most of us here love to keep looking at the differences
And we are united by our differences, as often as we can be.
Does this mean they'll be paying folks for joining the 173 mile club? Sign me up!
Sexual and reproductive success will be brought about by significant changes in testosterone and estrogen levels.
There would be no sex ratio of offspring at all without sperm damage.
Offspring would be asexual were it not for alterations and reductions in testosterone levels.
Bullshit.
So if you're trying to conceive, stage a wedding disaster.
So that's why all our kids are messed up down here.
OK, you got lucky with that one because it makes sense both ways.
I think that says ultimately the brain is brought about by microgravity.
Exactly when do they appear out of nowhere?
That's a lot to bring about, but I think radiation is up to the challenge.
Brought about, reduced, brought about, reduced, ... hey, men don't need radiation for that.
We just don't yet know who it was. Some day some memoir of an ex astronaut down on their luck will reveal all.
Given the numbers of the two sexes represented in space I wouldn't be too surprised to discover that the first sex in space was gay sex too.
Giving women right to vote is good thing.
I disagree. Today's Western societies are far, far over-feminized to the point of absurdity. This culture has an unhealthy obsession with "safety" and the avoidance of risk. Violence and risk taking are highly disincentivized. Helicopter parenting is out of control. The women of the 1700's were more manly than the milk toast boys we're raising in this society today. Women used to be the underclass. In modern Western cultures it's men and masculinity that are the underclass.
Such an infant would be the first real Martian — at least by nationality, the researcher pointed out.
Other than the US does any other country even offer citizenship by birth within its borders? Seeing how there's no nation on Mars I don't see how you can be a Martian by nationality.
because that shit is a one way trip!
What? Even longer than 40 000 to 50 000 years *or more*?
Not that extra-marital sex is necessarily a problem either
Extra-marital? Try extra-terrestrial!
Don't count in orbit.,,
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Adaption to the environment has nothing to do with a new species. A new species if formed when it can no longer viably reproduce with the existing human species (isn't the what defines a species!). Hence the fact they are on mars has nothing to do with the formation of a new species except that they are isolated. If you isolated a population on earth then the exact same arguments would apply. The fact that the people might develop differently (due to environmental factors) would apply equally to an infant born from "earth parents" that grows up on Mars.
We just don't yet know who it was. Some day some memoir of an ex astronaut down on their luck will reveal all.
Given the numbers of the two sexes represented in space I wouldn't be too surprised to discover that the first sex in space was gay sex too.
Yes, but we can make some very good guesses.
Number one on my list would be N. Jan Davis and Mark C. Lee who were married in secret not long before they both served as mission specialists aboard Endeavour on STS-47 in September 1992. If you were an astronaut on a space shuttle mission and two of your fellow astronauts were newlyweds honeymooning in space, wouldn't you make sure they got a little time alone?
There have been rumors and speculation about Elena Kondakova and Valery Polyakov who spent 130 days or so alone (out of 169 days) on Mir, and who appear quite friendly on some videos shot in orbit.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Want to start the 30 million mile high club?
scenario requires no mixing. tell me people wont be going back and forth over the next 10k years between earth and mars. of course, probably only from earth to mars for natives, as native martians wont handle earth g very well.
It puts a whole new meaning on the term "Space Shot"
regards
Fitvideo
Who says that they have to do it in the bedroom, the ISS has about 46,000 cubic feet of pressurized space (think the floor space of a very large home if it had 8 ft ceilings, online site compares it to about the same as 2 747's) , in all that room some of it must be the space equivalent of a seldom used supply closet. Remember we are talking about 1/3 to 2/3 (crew size was doubled to 6 in 2009) of the total crew being able to sneak off for a quickie here, in the good old days of crews of 3 all they really had to do was wait for a quiet moment while the other one was sleeping.
I'm sorry, dude, I know how porn works, but I for one don't pull out. It's gonna be in you, regardless of the opening I'm currently using.
Also, condoms. Saves lots of cleanup.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
The one nice thing about the "bedrooms" in the ISS is that they are completely private. The other parts of the ISS do have cameras and other "big brother" aspects where ground control can monitor what is going on.... for generally pretty good reasons too. There are places like the Progress vehicles that generally don't have interior cameras, as well as the logistics modules like the Leonardo... but those also contain supplies or trash. I suppose if you want to feel dirty....
Crew size is still at 3 people right now, as the main problem is trying to be able to evacuate everybody from the station in an emergency. A Soyuz capsule can stay in orbit (hence attached to the ISS) for between six months to little more than a year. The Space Shuttle is limited to about 30-45 days in orbit (presuming that the Shuttle orbiter minimizes energy consumption by drawing power directly from the ISS rather than from fuel cells). While the ISS itself can support more than six people on a temporary basis and in theory it can support six people on an indefinite basis, all that implies is that the overlap between crews doesn't have to be rushed... where they certainly can do some projects that might require more crew members. It still remains a crew of 3 often enough that it can be considered the current crew size at the moment.
Most of these guys & gals who go up to the ISS are older and married, or those who are single usually have outside relationships too. Considering the easiest way to become an astronaut is to have a PhD with some post-grad work of distinction, that sort of puts a pretty tough minimum age for a typical astronaut and represents a certain level of maturity that limits the kind of experimentation for sexual activities that is more common with undergrads or kids in high school. Think about it. Many astronauts can move from NASA to a major university after doing a stint as an astronaut to become a full professor directly rather than having to mess with the tenure fight... as they usually have plenty of publications and usually bring plenty of distinction to the university that grabs them. Being known as the gigolo of spaceflight doesn't really help an astronaut if that word got out.
Native Americans immigrated from Asia what, thirty thousand years ago? Yet they're not a different species from Africans or Europeans; not much different at all from any other race.
Yes, but did they have different gravity in America?
Every end has half a stick.
Yep. Like I said, a lot of slashdotters probably weren't even born the last time I read it.
Free Martian Whores!
Growing fatherless (or motherless; as an orphan, generally) is pretty much the norm for our species.
Recent times of low mortality / long lives (and still not everywhere) are almost a statistical fluke.
(and as long as there's recombination...)
One that hath name thou can not otter
The point is, though, that your statement "History of space exploration is a history of man" is dead wrong.
Free Martian Whores!
The point is, though, that your statement "History of space exploration is a history of man" is dead wrong.
Oh really? Compare number of men to number of women astronauts. How many women landed on the Moon?
At the very least they should be studying bringing a child to term (however fertilized and nurtured). How ridiculous would we feel if we were forced to colonize space only to realize we didn't know the science behind reproduction in space. That would be a lame way for the human species to die off.
How is miner a man's job? btw I live in Russia, but grew up in the good old USSR, no one was "forcing" women to take mens jobs. Silly communists actually managed to convince women they were equal to men.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
What is the problem for a boy to have mostly female role models? Are female teachers, scientists, engineers, astronauts and politicians not good enough for man? Are you afraid that the boy won't learn how to scratch his nads properly? Or god forbid turn into a fag?
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
How is miner a man's job? btw I live in Russia, but grew up in the good old USSR, no one was "forcing" women to take mens jobs.
Every job which requires physical strength is a mens job. Simply because men are stronger than women.
Silly communists
actually managed to convince women they were equal to men.
Silly indeed. Women are not equal to men.
As much as you'd like to de-emphasize the difference between men and women (and I certainly do), at some point boys are going to discover that there are differences, and those differences will matter. Of course women can be great role models, but inevitably, some men will become role models too. And without normal adult men in his environment, he may have to resort to either boys in his class, or movie actors.
There are good reasons why people are trying to get more men into child care and primary education. A society entirely dominated by women isn't any better than a society entirely dominated by men. Diversity is a good thing.
The kind of strength required to be a miner is well within reach of many women. I wonder if you ever seen a miner up close, they are just you average guys, not heavy lifting champions.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
The kind of strength required to be a miner is well within reach of many women.
No it isn't.
Ok, maybe not American women, but definitely Russian women.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
No, but there were many other environmental differences, such as climate, foodstocks, etc.
Free Martian Whores!
The same could be said of general aviation.
Compare the first woman pilot, Madame Therese Peltier in 1908, five years after the Wright Brothers flew. The fact is, there haven't been more female pilots because they didn't want to be pilots, in the air or in space. But the fact that there was a woman cosmonaut two years after the first male cosmonaut shows that it isn't a "men only" club.
Free Martian Whores!
"Hence, donkeys and horses are different species, because mules (what you get when mating a horse and a donkey) are sterile"
Hinnies (female mules) can sometimes get pregnant naturally, so it would be better to call them infertile and not use them as a species example.