|
Whether it is about taking a spaceship to another world or travelling back in time or fleeing a doomed earth...Colonization Scifi continues to violate the rules of efficiency by sending men. Optimal colonization involves Sending Women only and providing them with Sperm in a freezer for proliferation.
Where do you stand on Idiot Scifi? Would you be OK if we send Women only to colonize the Moon and Mars?
It's not stupid.
To take your reasoning one step further, why have humans at all? Just colonize with robots.
A colony is not just about getting biomass into another location. It would be the continuation of your culture and society. This would depend on the colonist practising their cultural norms and raising their children with that structure.
In that case, they absolutely would have to bring both men and women of all kinds on the mission.
To take your reasoning one step further, why have humans at all? Just colonize with robots.
Well we don't yet have robots with enough on-board intelligence to be
usefull.But, we do have women and sperm.
Wait... where are the space ships?
::Looks for leadership from Erik Mona
|
|
In 2002, the anthropologist John H. Moore estimated that a population of 150–180 would allow normal reproduction for 60 to 80 generations — equivalent to 2000 years.A much smaller initial population of as little as two female humans should be viable as long as human embryos are available from Earth. Use of a sperm bank from Earth also allows a smaller starting base with negligible inbreeding.
Researchers in conservation biology have tended to adopt the "50/500" rule of thumb initially advanced by Franklin and Soule. This rule says a short-term effective population size (Ne) of 50 is needed to prevent an unacceptable rate of inbreeding, while a long‐term Ne of 500 is required to maintain overall genetic variability. The Ne = 50 prescription corresponds to an inbreeding rate of 1% per generation, approximately half the maximum rate tolerated by domestic animal breeders. The Ne = 500 value attempts to balance the rate of gain in genetic variation due to mutation with the rate of loss due to genetic drift.
So anyway, I saw a study about the original inhabitants of Australia. History channel or some such. They estimated that 100 women and 50 men could have been enough to have colonized the land effectively. Or so I seem to recall, this was a month ago or so I think.
[snark]But if the colonists are all female who's going to kill the spiders in the bath tub?[/snark]
Women colonists only would probably be more efficient but would require a major restructuring of the the colonists culture which would defeat the whole purpose of a colony in the first place which is to recreate your culture on a different world.
|
|
So anyway, I saw a study about the original inhabitants of Australia. History channel or some such. They estimated that 100 women and 50 men could have been enough to have colonized the land effectively. Or so I seem to recall, this was a month ago or so I think.
In 2002, the anthropologist John H. Moore estimated that a population of 150–180 would allow normal reproduction for 60 to 80 generations — equivalent to 2000 years.A much smaller initial population of as little as two female humans should be viable as long as human embryos are available from Earth. Use of a sperm bank from Earth also allows a smaller starting base with negligible inbreeding.
Researchers in conservation biology have tended to adopt the "50/500" rule of thumb initially advanced by Franklin and Soule. This rule says a short-term effective population size (Ne) of 50 is needed to prevent an unacceptable rate of inbreeding, while a long‐term Ne of 500 is required to maintain overall genetic variability. The Ne = 50 prescription corresponds to an inbreeding rate of 1% per generation, approximately half the maximum rate tolerated by domestic animal breeders. The Ne = 500 value attempts to balance the rate of gain in genetic variation due to mutation with the rate of loss due to genetic drift.
Unfortunatly three things:
1. The Degree of Indoeuropean words found in indigenous Australian Languages implies continuous migration and contact as far back as 2000bc and given the presence of indoeuropean root words in certain american indian languages that have been in isolation for ten thousand years probably a lot longer.
2. After fifty thousand Years of occupation I would have expected something in the Way of a Pyramid and some ruined ancient cities. Instead we have had a continent wide Desert - Simpson Spinifex and associated species found as far north as Dundee Beach which is just at the edge of the escarpment that runs like a wall across the north edge of the NT. Simpson desert about 1000+ miles away so it was one hell of a drought.
3. A percentage of Indigenous population suffers genetic diseases that are the result of inbreeding. They have 'cultural traditions' governing 'relations' between even distant Cousins, but the genetic pool has still reached a critical failure red line.
As a consequence I suspect the first 100 women and 50 men went extinct after a few thousand years of inbreeding. It likely involved continuous migration over 50,000 years and regular extinction cycles of any human presence.
|
It depends. The key question is what's the point of colonization?
I posit that the main goal usually to provide a psycologic relief valve and safe place to put malcontent people, at least for the powers that be who fund such ventures. If thats true then sending family units (work hard and maybe your kids can grow up in utopia!) and single men (more traditional troublemakers) is completly reasonable.
Normally the expense of sending people far away is such that it's not actually a realistic option for solving earths problems of overpopulation or resource exhaustion.
At least this is what I've learned from Kim Stanley Robinson's excellent Red Mars series.
While there may be practical benefit in low earth and asteroid colonisation, the point would be stretched for the Moon, and is practically impossible to argue for Mars. There is essentially nothing on Mars that can be used for Earth's benefit, that can't be obtained far more cheaply by asteroid or lunar mining.
Except living space* and reduced chance of single cataclysm wiping out the whole species.
*martian living space would be much cheaper than living space in asteroid belt, I guess it could be cheaper than lunar living space in very long run due to various factors like greater g, greater chance of producing CO2 atmosphere and finally more place and potential for simple geneengineered ecosystem.
Except living space* and reduced chance of single cataclysm wiping out the whole species.Right along that I usually hear the slogan... disband NASA and let private enterprise take us to space.
Huh? Why? How is private enterprise more fit to take steps extending human survival as a species than governmental, or better, international organizations?
None of those reasons that you listed sounds like it translates to corporate returns.
Beacause it does not. Terran living space is still much-much cheaper than martian would be for, well, probably centuries. And survival of humankind as the species is not high on any corporate priorites. Yes, extinction of humankind would mean end of corporations. But surviving as a small population would shatter the economics and force complete social and economical restructurization of survivors. Which would either end the corporation or make it into a new government. Except the chances of such extermination are not high enough to want corporations to invest into space colony just in case they might become new overlords of humanity. Especially that in such scenarion shareholders and board of directors will be probably wiped together with life on Earth while some secondary director will become first Ruler-Of-Humans-In-Exile-On-Mars.
Aside from that the only motivation that has ever gotten us into space was competitive flagwaving, and that one was made obsolete by Neil Armstrong.
I think that colonization of solar system might be performed in the future not as a primary mission but as a side-effect of development of asteroid mining and other misions to gather resources/develop space factories. Like potential gas-skimming of hard to produce hydrogen isotopes from gas-giants might end with habitats being build on or around giants' moons to house hydrogen-refineries workers and their families. But it would be far future.
If you don't send men, then who kills off the indigenous population with big, automatic, high-caliber guns to keep the colony safe while the women are all pregnant and swollen-ankled?
|
|
Unfortunatly three things:
1. The Degree of Indoeuropean words found in indigenous Australian Languages implies continuous migration and contact as far back as 2000bc and given the presence of indoeuropean root words in certain american indian languages that have been in isolation for ten thousand years probably a lot longer.2. After fifty thousand Years of occupation I would have expected something in the Way of a Pyramid and some ruined ancient cities. Instead we have had a continent wide Desert - Simpson Spinifex and associated species found as far north as Dundee Beach which is just at the edge of the escarpment that runs like a wall across the north edge of the NT. Simpson desert about 1000+ miles away so it was one hell of a drought.
3. A percentage of Indigenous population suffers genetic diseases that are the result of inbreeding. They have 'cultural traditions' governing 'relations' between even distant Cousins, but the genetic pool has still reached a critical failure red line.
As a consequence I suspect the first 100 women and 50 men went extinct after a few thousand years of inbreeding. It likely involved continuous migration over 50,000 years and regular extinction cycles of any human presence.
1. While I am not a trained linguist, I highly doubt that. In fact I could all but say you would have to come up with substantial proof if such an accusation.
2. Well believe what you want, we do have evidence of people being in some areas of Australia 10,000 years before anyone was known to have been in Europe. Maybe you fantasy root words came not from indoeurpe but rather from southeast Asia and moved back north. I have an example word, but the profanity filters would prevent its use. It is a common word for both cats and certain parts of a ladies anatomy that has evidence in both old french and some Asian languages to the point that though we know it is fairly modern the actual original source is lost. Such is the problem with linguistics.
3. No clue on this.
I would say that the 150 possible original people, most likely died between 40 and 60 years. Unless you might think they were say Elves?
Not having a pyramid does not mean lack of culture or advancement. All we are talking about here anyway is population growth. 150 is a good start for another world. Does not mean we should stop sending people. I mean we have what 7 billion now?