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: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 31 2018, @03:45PM (17 children)
And 0 feminazis! Though strangely, this does align with the "males are almost redundant" idea. The more redundant men are, the more females the chosen men will have to, ahem, service.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 31 2018, @04:42PM (10 children)
I've wondered a few times, why mankind tends to produce roughly the same number of males and females. Back in prehistory, it seems that we should have preferred more females than males. As you indicate, one male can service many females. I don't know what an "ideal" ratio would be, but something on the order of ten to one seems near right. Of course, society would be very different. No patriarchy, for instance. We may or may not have gone the opposite route with matriarchies, but I think the patriarchy thing would have been lost. Warfare probably wouldn't be the thing it is. Men would be pretty damned occupied at home, a lot of the time, and wouldn't have time to go picking fights with other men.
Would life be better, or worse?
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Thursday May 31 2018, @05:21PM
If you want, you could check the ratios in bees or elephant seals. Evolutionary theory has worked hard on that problem, and it seems that the correct answer is (almost) always an equal investment in each sex (which can be hard to measure). Bdelloid rotifers, though, cause one to wonder about that. Most parthenogenetic species die out fairly quickly, but not the bdelloidia.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday May 31 2018, @05:54PM
"""
“When mothers and daughters share home ranges
that do not overlap with other females, all direct competition will involve close kin and selection for
male-biased birth sex ratios will be strong. But as the number of females using overlapping home-
ranges increases…the effects of competition between closely related females will be outweighed by
competition from females of different matrilines or groups, and selection for male-biased sex ratios
will weaken.” When the extent of home range overlap is held constant, genera with female philopatry
are expected to have higher (more male-biased) birth sex ratios than other genera. This prediction is
supported in a sample of 16 primate genera (Johnson, 1988)
"""
/Sex ratios in primate groups/, Joan B. Silk and Gillian R. Brown
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3193/aeb8e2c22f7c148422921f3728d510e2428f.pdf
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @06:51PM
Male and female children cost the same to produce. If each male mates with ten females, then an average male will be ten times as successful as an average female. Since sex is determined genetically*, the genes that produce more male children will win over the ones that produce the 1-in-10 ratio. This leads to more males being born until the ratio is close to equal.
There are species that have skewed sex ratios. They are found in species where the investment in one sex is higher (queens and drones in bees). In species where the investment is the same, the ratio is the same. Investment here means the total resources spent by the parents in both biologically growing the child and also parenting it.
In humans, the ratio is actually not quite equal. More boys are born than girls. However, boys have higher rates of child mortality. If your child dies, you stop investing in it. As a result the average male child actually does receive less investment than the average female child and so ratios are just slightly skewed.
Species are generally not limited by the ability to actually produce children. The limit is always resources. There are a few critically endangered species that have problems breeding, but no species is optimized for this case, for reasons which should be obvious.
* even in species where it isn't directly, the mechanism is still determined genetically, so genes would take over if they could get an advantage by doing so
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday May 31 2018, @09:30PM (1 child)
There's nothing to wonder about: It's the result of the process of sexual reproduction that goes back to single-celled organisms, combined with the X/Y chromosomes that determine whether the organism will be male-type or female-type in the vast majority of mammals including primates. You have most male-types with XY, they divide into sperm that are usually either X or Y in approximately a 50% ratio, and that combined with the eggs that are usually X, is guaranteed to have 50% odds of male-ness.
The mechanisms that could in theory exist to change that would all have the effect of reducing the chances of the parents reproducing at all, by killing off potential XY babies before they were born (e.g. 50% of Y-type sperm being non-viable). Which, in turn, lowers the odds that those genes would be passed on at all. Which means they're unlikely to arise via natural selection.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @07:23AM
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
Why are the sperm in that ratio? They don't have to be: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120228114201.htm [sciencedaily.com]
(Score: 2) by martyb on Friday June 01 2018, @12:19AM (1 child)
Robert Heinlein, in his phenomenal work The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, explored some pertinent aspects of what is being discussed here. Especially with respect to family structures, housing, low gravity, no atmosphere, and governmental organization. Hint: it is not your typical patriarchical society.
I found it to be a real page-turner when I first came upon it in my late teens, and now many years later, it has held up very well and is still most enjoyable. Very Highly Recommended.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Friday June 01 2018, @12:21AM
Should you be interested, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress [archive.org] is available in many formats on archive.org.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @03:52AM
The parents with the 1 male then pass on their traits to 10x as many offspring the female producers. As soon as you get a genetic predisposition to have males more than 10% of the time, you pass that trait on to many of the next generation and the disparity disappears.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @06:28AM (1 child)
I thought this until I had two female flatmates. It was frightening some of the things they pulled. Granted it was a somewhat forced situation out of necessity, but still.
I'd rather have two men overtly fight each other with rocks than say they're best friends while secretly trying to kill each other's pets
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @07:35AM
More men are less in touch with their emotions, we can compartmentalize. Which is a good thing when we need to cooperate with hated enemies for our mutual benefit.
More women than men would go "After what that bitch did yesterday, I'm not going to help her kill the enemies attacking us, I hate her guts". They'll admit they think that way and it's not logical but they don't care!
In contrast guys are more likely to cooperate till the danger is over then only blow up the hated target with a discreet use of an enemy grenade. And that's if they really still hate the target so much. Sometimes it's "he's not so bad after all, don't need to risk getting caught to kill him".
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday May 31 2018, @05:34PM (5 children)
Males are only pointless when work can be done by machines. Until then we still need to build, dredge, break our backs and arms, etc.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 31 2018, @07:11PM (4 children)
It's sad you see yourself that way. "Don't genocide me, Mistress! I'm still good for work!" How about, you're still a human, and that's all the reason required to treat you well, regardless of chromosomes or phenotype or gender identity? Good grief, why is the resident granola dyke the one pointing this out? @_@
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday May 31 2018, @09:40PM (3 children)
There are some radical feminist types, like Valerie Solanas [neu.edu], in fact sometimes do treat male-ness as something to be eliminated. My solidly feminist aunt told me all about her experiences in the 1970's among womyn's conferences where she was looked down upon in part because she insisted on seeing men as potential partners rather than enemies (she's since gotten married to a very cool guy, and they've been quite happily together for decades). Someone in my social circle is a bit more moderate: She's fine with men continuing to exist, so long as they aren't in charge of anything anymore.
That's certainly not the mainstream feminist view, where what's termed toxic masculinity is the problem rather than masculinity in general, but it's not like the viewpoint doesn't exist.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 31 2018, @09:56PM (2 children)
Well, yes, and Westboro Baptist doesn't speak for all Christians. But somehow, if I equated all of Christianity with the WBC I'd be vilified, but it's de rigeur for a hell of a lot of men online to equate feminism as a whole with Solanas.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday May 31 2018, @10:16PM (1 child)
I'll put it this way: Reading just about anything written by Gloria Steinem, or speaking with her for about 15 seconds, will quickly put to lie any notion that Solanas represents mainstream feminism.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 01 2018, @03:28AM
But the people who most need to know that don't even know who Steinem is, and would never read anything by her anyway on (lack of) principle. It's a paradox: the ones who most need knowledge are least likely to seek it :(
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...