SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Sex on Mars is going to be risky, but it could create a new human subspecies
In a new research paper published in Futures, an international team of scientists examines the challenges of reproduction on the Martian surface. It's a risky proposition, but if humans succeed in conceiving, carrying, and birthing offspring on another world it might actually be the start of a new species.
In the paper, the researchers tackle a huge number of potential problems that could crop up when humans are finally ready to rear young on Mars. The first and most obvious hurdle is the low gravity environment, which could pose a serious threat to the conception and pregnancy processes that seem so simple here on Earth.
[...] The paper also examines the inherent challenges of bolstering the numbers of a small colony of settlers on the planet. The concept of "love" might have to take a back seat to pure survival, with men and women being paired up by their biology rather than emotion. Additionally, some individuals may never be allowed to have children due to undesirable traits that are a risk to the colony as a whole.
In a somewhat scary aside, the researchers also note that editing the genes of future Mars babies might be an easy way to increase the prospects of survival.
Also at Live Science.
Biological and social challenges of human reproduction in a long-term Mars base (DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2018.04.006) (DX)
Related: Space colonization and suffering risks: Reassessing the "maxipok rule" (DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2018.04.008) (DX)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Thursday May 31 2018, @02:10PM (2 children)
Colonization is rarely particularly scientific or logical.
Meanwhile, any experiments done in orbit will be inconclusive - it's not possible to conclusively separate the effects of gravity from the effects of radiation, plus it introduces constant rotation as another potential complicating factor. And we can't block the radiation without encasing the station in around 14 pounds of insulation per square inch of surface. That's a LOT of mass to get into orbit, and to hold together while spinning. Though we could maybe do mouse-cage size experiments at a reasonable expense.
Meanwhile, we already know mammalian reproduction works in orbit - we haven't tried humans specifically, but others have succeeded. Doesn't matter if most pregnancies fail, so long as enough succeed to keep the population going. Would probably have to change our attitudes around abortion and infant mortality, but it would hardly be the first time.
And, even if we find that gravity IS a directly insurmountable problem - there's still no reason we couldn't colonize Mars - we'd just need "maternity ward" centrifuges to provide sufficient gravity for women looking to reproduce. A nice comfy train on a banked circular track would do the job nicely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @04:12AM (1 child)
0) Your claims of inconclusiveness are just FUD. The experiment would be more conclusive, applicable and useful than many of the other experiments NASA does. Furthermore don't forget there's only one Mars but humans could have more than one space station in the solar system. If we don't go extinct we are likely to eventually have humans living elsewhere than Mars and Earth.
1) There's radiation on Mars too about 30 µSv per hour ( https://www.mars-one.com/faq/health-and-ethics/how-much-radiation-will-the-settlers-be-exposed-to [mars-one.com] ). The ISS is 0.3 Sv per year (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691437/ ) which works out to be about the same 34uSv per hour.
2) As for shielding every 7 cm of water cuts radiation in half: https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-engineering/materials-nuclear-engineering/properties-of-water/water-as-gamma-radiation-shielding/ [nuclear-power.net]
(beta and alpha are easily stopped, and water is more effective as a neutron radiation shield than a gamma shield).
US background radiation is 0.20mSv/year - about 0.023uSv per hour. So that works out to about 80cm of water to bring the 34uSv/hour down to background levels. Let's make that 1 metre. 1 cubic metre of water weighs 1 ton. 1 square metre is 1550 square inches. 1 square inch x 1 metre of water weighs 0.65kg which is 1.42 pounds, add a pound or two for the stuff to hold the water and additional shielding and it still wouldn't be as high as your 14 pounds of insulation.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday June 01 2018, @02:04PM
0) I don't deny that the experiment would be informative, just not conclusive. How exactly would you conclusively separate the problems caused by radiation from those caused by gravity, while ruling out new problems caused by high-speed rotation? You'd have to have an huge population size, which means mice or something, which in turn means any results aren't necessarily applicable to humans. We'll absolutely have to address the issue eventually as we move into space, but tackling one of the most challenging environments first is perhaps not well-advised.
1) Mars also has literal gigatons tons of near-free radiation shielding (a.k.a. water, sand, and rock).
2) Water is good, but isn't exactly light either, and introduces containment issues since it can't hold together on its own (keeping it frozen this close to the sun would be a major challenge in itself). And the real problem isn't nuclear radiation, but cosmic rays and the high-energy particle cascades they create - it's like sitting in the beam of a broad-spectrum particle accelerator whose higher energies completely dwarf anything we've created. It's a whole different problem than anything we see on Earth, where we have 14psi of atmospheric shielding protecting us. You pretty much just need a lot of mass between you and the source - not just to block the cosmic rays themselves, but the relativistic particle cascades they create. And experiments have shown that the kind of mass is only somewhat relevant: dense solids are a bit more effective per pound than gasses, but larger nuclei like lead create radioactive particle cascades that are considerably more dangerous than the cosmic rays that create them.
We may not need a full 14psi (984g/cm^2, or ~10m of water), but I'm guessing that less than a tenth of that won't be sufficient. Though hey, I'd love to be proved wrong. If an ice-dome a meter thick is enough to safely live under long-term, then that would make Mars colonies far less claustrophobic than having to spend most of your time underground. With proper conditions during freezing, a meter of ice can be extremely transparent. Even at worst you'd get a lovely glowing frosted dome above you, with a bit of an earthy blue sky tint.