Children on Mars - One perspective

Bill White · 2004-06-07 11:06:32

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … lert=0]One scientists take.

In the long, long run, this is the only issue that matters.

Unless we go to bear children we will never stay and then flags, footprints and rock samples will be the only legacy.

= = =

Therefore, I say start testing centripetal induced simulated gravity and start learning to build very thick walls of boronated polyethylene.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-07 11:25:46

I'm inclined to agree, though even if natural reproduction fails there are technological fixes.

If we must resort to those fixes, it will have profound impact on the development of Martian society. A human society in which sex and reproduction are completely separate. Think about that...

Yes, some form of simulated gravity and extremely good shielding is in order. It would be unfortunate to eventually terraform the planet and not be able to live naturally on it after all.

Bill White · 2004-06-07 11:44:35

I just remembered something. I went and found my copy of Case for Mars and re-read the Introduction written by Arthur C. Clarke:

It is almost fifty years since I ended my first book, Interplanetary Flight, with these words:
"The choice, as Wells once said, is the Universe - - or nothing. . .
The challenge of the great spaces between worlds is a stupendous one; but if we fail to meet it, the story of our race will be drawing to its close. Humanity will have turned its back upon the still untrodden heights and will be descending again the long slope that stretches, across a thousand million years of time, down to the shores of the primeval sea.

Rxke · 2004-06-07 12:09:17

Hmmm... If you read between the lines... Would Polyakov maybe have been examined by physicists, and they found out his fertility dropped significantly after his record-time in space?

He is one of the long-flights pioneers, so...

Bill White · 2004-06-07 15:13:28

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … =0]Another opinion.

clark · 2004-06-07 15:27:00

A little what if...

Suppose that the first child born on Mars is born mentaly handicapped with Down's Syndrome. What do you think would be the fall out?

Bill White · 2004-06-07 16:03:29

A little what if...
Suppose that the first child born on Mars is born mentaly handicapped with Down's Syndrome. What do you think would be the fall out?

A species "staying power" after such an occurrence needs to be added to Drake's Equation as an additional variable.

= = =

Edit to add: clark, it is more fun when we can maybe disagree and joust a little. All that earlier agreement had been getting boring.

clark · 2004-06-07 16:29:44

I disagree.

Edit: What if there were simply greater instances of improper fetus development, or cognitive problems related to space babies?

Not all, but just an increase by a factor of 10 over current instances of development related problems?

Would it still be worth it?

At a factor of 100?

Palomar · 2004-06-09 08:37:07

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-bas … ml]Russian scientist: Mars will make men sterile?

*He seems rather certain of it.

::edit:: Not sure I'm interpreting the article's author's comments correctly regarding one particular statement made by that scientist, so have erased some of my own comments.

Anyway...

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-06-09 11:48:14

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-bas … ml]Russian scientist: Mars will make men sterile?
*He seems rather certain of it.
::edit:: Not sure I'm interpreting the article's author's comments correctly regarding one particular statement made by that scientist, so have erased some of my own comments.
Anyway...
--Cindy

Without protection from radiation and micro-gravity, he is correct. Hence, we need to spin our habitats and add layers of radiation shielding.

clark, however, asks the germane question.

How much are we willing to suffer to become a two planet or multi-planet species? An excellent question.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 12:04:15

Re. Clark's question. A tenfold increase in fetal irregularities and defects would seriously hinder efforts, 100 fold would kill it. Unless artificial means were used, artificial wombs replicating normal conditions. With the error rate so high for natural reproduction it becomes far too inefficient, not even taking emotional factors into account. Other means would be necessary.

I'd argue that expanding to other world's is still worth it, but it would profoundly alter the culture, first of those who go and eventually of all humanity. Whether for good or ill we cannot now know.

Palomar · 2004-06-09 12:23:32

clark, however, asks the germane question.
How much are we willing to suffer to become a two planet or multi-planet species? An excellent question.

*Yep. Excellent, pertinent question.

Cobra: A tenfold increase in fetal irregularities and defects would seriously hinder efforts, 100 fold would kill it. Unless artificial means were used, artificial wombs replicating normal conditions. With the error rate so high for natural reproduction it becomes far too inefficient, not even taking emotional factors into account. Other means would be necessary.
I'd argue that expanding to other world's is still worth it, but it would profoundly alter the culture, first of those who go and eventually of all humanity. Whether for good or ill we cannot now know.

*Artificial wombs...I remember a movie from the 1970s raising that debate (can't recall the name of the movie; Stephanie Zimbalist starred in it, IIRC). Then there's the matter of an artificial womb being sufficiently shielded; and the emotional aspects you point out. Not to mention a host of other issues as well, surrounding that scenario (physiology, etc.)...

Maybe it's good to keep in mind the health and well-being of *this* planet even more so...in case we are, by circumstances which may prove beyond our control, "marooned" here on Earth. :-\

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 13:32:40

Shielding an artificial shouldn't womb shouldn't be a problem. just put it deep under ground. A centrifuge may be sufficient to simulate Earth gravity and allow proper development, we don't have enough data on that.

The result though would be that Martian colonies would have rooms under them filled with human fetuses in "eggs" waiting to, well, hatching time. Man-hives.

And since the genetic material is being combined artificially anyway, there's no sense in not tweaking any problems that arise.

Perfect human specimens hatching from plastic eggs. It's a brave new world, dear friends.

Palomar · 2004-06-09 13:41:59

Shielding an artificial shouldn't womb shouldn't be a problem. just put it deep under ground.
Perfect human specimens hatching from plastic eggs.

*I don't take you for a facetious person.

I will say, however, that - as a woman - I had an automatic, deeply physical, primal NO! reaction to your post.

Brave new world, hmmmmm. My maternal instinct sure made itself felt (and yeah I know -- I'm just one woman).

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-06-09 13:42:20

Shielding an artificial shouldn't womb shouldn't be a problem. just put it deep under ground. A centrifuge may be sufficient to simulate Earth gravity and allow proper development, we don't have enough data on that.
The result though would be that Martian colonies would have rooms under them filled with human fetuses in "eggs" waiting to, well, hatching time. Man-hives.
And since the genetic material is being combined artificially anyway, there's no sense in not tweaking any problems that arise.
Perfect human specimens hatching from plastic eggs. It's a brave new world, dear friends.

Radiation sufficient to render people sterile will also shorten life expenctancy. Therefore, with sufficient polyethylene radiation shielding, there is no need for artificial wombs for that purpose (even if feasible).

Gravity? 3/8th gee might be enough. Or 3/8 ths gee with several hours per day of 1 gee or 1.05 gee "training" - - but right now its all guesswork.

Spinning mice at 3/8the gee in LEO is perhaps the first experimental step.

Bill White · 2004-06-09 13:44:01

Shielding an artificial shouldn't womb shouldn't be a problem. just put it deep under ground.
Perfect human specimens hatching from plastic eggs.
*I don't take you for a facetious person.
I will say, however, that -- as a woman -- I had an automatic, deeply physical, primal NO! reaction to your post.
Brave new world, hmmmmm. My maternal instinct sure made itself felt (and yeah I know -- I'm just one woman).
--Cindy

For the record, my emotional response was the same as yours Cindy.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 13:53:07

I will say, however, that - as a woman - I had an automatic, deeply physical, primal NO! reaction to your post.

Somehow I suspected that might be the case, and I suspect you're not alone in that. Such a development would be in direct conflict with millions of years of instinct, it would screw with us far more than many people probably think. Even though from a purely practical standpoint it has advantages.

Gravity? 3/8th gee might be enough. Or 3/8 ths gee with several hours per day of 1 gee or 1.05 gee "training" - - but right now its all guesswork.
Spinning mice at 3/8the gee in LEO is perhaps the first experimental step.

Yes, we just don't know if the gravity will play a role. Hopefully .38 G is enough for normal development, but somehow I suspect it isn't. That first generation of colonists is going to run into all sorts of problems the engineers and eggheads never thought of, this may well prove to be one of them.

Maybe an experiment to test reactions to the "hive" should be conducted, just in case. I'll be mildly surprised if anyone can make it through the nine months without an... episode of some sort.

Hopefully .38 G is enough.

clark · 2004-06-09 14:09:49

Somehow I suspected that might be the case, and I suspect you're not alone in that. Such a development would be in direct conflict with millions of years of instinct, it would screw with us far more than many people probably think.

And here I thought it was just the worry about "job security". :laugh: But I am usually considered a facetious person.

Man hives? :laugh:

So here is some more monkey wrench's: Long term exsposure to less than ideal environments (read Terran norm) leads to higher percentages of mental disorders, and lower life expectancies on the order of 10-25 years. Would it be worth it if people suffer from higher instances of schizophrenia, neurosis, psychosis, or catatonia? If you age faster?

Maybe I should have the crystal in my hand looked at...

Bill White · 2004-06-09 14:12:17

Somehow I suspected that might be the case, and I suspect you're not alone in that. Such a development would be in direct conflict with millions of years of instinct, it would screw with us far more than many people probably think.
And here I thought it was just the worry about "job security". :laugh: But I am usually considered a facetious person.
Man hives? :laugh:
So here is some more monkey wrench's: Long term exsposure to less than ideal environments (read Terran norm) leads to higher percentages of mental disorders, and lower life expectancies on the order of 10-25 years. Would it be worth it if people suffer from higher instances of schizophrenia, neurosis, psychosis, or catatonia? If you age faster?
Maybe I should have the crystal in my hand looked at...

That is why anywhere we go in space will require thick layers of radiation shielding, unless we choose to remain a one planet species.

Even the Moon will need layers of shielding and lunar regolith is a lousy radshield comapred to boronated polyethylene.

clark · 2004-06-09 14:13:13

We may not have a choice.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 14:15:00

Maybe I should have the crystal in my hand looked at...

Renew, Clark. Renew.

clark · 2004-06-09 14:30:52

Naw, I'll just burst into techno-colored flames. Thanks anyway Sandman. :laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-07 11:06:32

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#2 2004-06-07 11:25:46

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#3 2004-06-07 11:44:35

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#4 2004-06-07 12:09:17

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#5 2004-06-07 15:13:28

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#6 2004-06-07 15:27:00

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#7 2004-06-07 16:03:29

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#8 2004-06-07 16:29:44

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#9 2004-06-09 08:37:07

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#10 2004-06-09 11:48:14

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#11 2004-06-09 12:04:15

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#12 2004-06-09 12:23:32

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#13 2004-06-09 13:32:40

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#14 2004-06-09 13:41:59

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#15 2004-06-09 13:42:20

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#16 2004-06-09 13:44:01

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#17 2004-06-09 13:53:07

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#18 2004-06-09 14:09:49

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#19 2004-06-09 14:12:17

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#20 2004-06-09 14:13:13

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#21 2004-06-09 14:15:00

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

#22 2004-06-09 14:30:52

Re: Children on Mars - One perspective

Board footer