[QUOTE=mrkaki;50960020]what
100$-3000$ dollars worth of anti-biotics would already be enough for the trip
compared to saving half a billion dollars from food, that's completely negligible[/QUOTE]
I'm calling BS on that mainly because I can't even find the aforementioned study they're talking about.
Its literally a page error which means I can't counter it.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50960122]Kind of hilarious how many people assumed this was some dumb culture-war bullshit, got butthurt about it, and immediately reached for the torches and pitchforks, when it's actually based on actual physiological differences, and is pretty intelligent (if a bit obvious to anyone who's done enough research on long-duration spaceflight).[/QUOTE]
I find it funny that the overall reaction here on Facepunch to things like men getting better positions than women in things is explained as 'meritocracy', but as soon as meritocracy explains that women are better suited than men for something, suddenly that overall reaction changes to become 'but equality!'
[QUOTE=sb27;50960775]I find it funny that the [b]overall reaction here on Facepunch to things like men getting better positions than women in things is explained as 'meritocracy'[/b], but as soon as meritocracy explains that women are better suited than men for something, suddenly that overall reaction changes to become 'but equality!'[/QUOTE]
what?
I can't tell if a majority of the dumbs are because "nah that wouldn't work as well as it may seem" or "wow fucking feminist propaganda bullshit".
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50959564]No it should be as diverse as possible. Because Humanity should be represented in the galaxy for the multiple people. Men and Women, Black and White, etc.[/QUOTE]
"OH NO, THE ONLY QUALIFIED PEOPLE AT THE TIME WERE WHITE MALES, CANCEL THE MISSION!"
and when it fails?
[QUOTE=Episode;50960911]"OH NO, THE ONLY QUALIFIED PEOPLE AT THE TIME WERE WHITE MALES, CANCEL THE MISSION!"[/QUOTE]
- "OH NO THAT'LL BLOW A HOLE IN OUR BUDGET, LOWER THE REQUIREMENTS!"
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50960122]Kind of hilarious how many people assumed this was some dumb culture-war bullshit, got butthurt about it, and immediately reached for the torches and pitchforks, when it's actually based on actual physiological differences, and is pretty intelligent (if a bit obvious to anyone who's done enough research on long-duration spaceflight).[/QUOTE]
Yeah right, "intelligent".
Let's just assume we can get rid of the radiation risk entirely somehow, which is a major drawback for women currently due to their increased susceptibility, but at the same time we can't get rid of the vision impairment risk men appear to have for some reason, arbitrarily putting them at a disadvantage.
Let's assume we can save money on food by using all women on the mission (which isn't even that much of a significant amount), while the antibiotics to treat urinary tract infections are free however, right?
Let's just assume women do better alone in a spacecraft because good old trustworthy China said so, despite NASA saying otherwise and having far more experience with space travel.
How many women did NASA have in space? Well over 40.
How many did China have in space? Just 2.
Sure sounds like a well thought-through video to me that isn't at all riding on top of a currently hot and controversial social debate topic.
Whoever is more qualified.
If it in the end turns out that women are more qualified in general, then by all means go ahead.
The crew should consist of one white female, one black male, one asian male, and the rest should be white males. OPTIONAL: add a talking animal of some description.
[QUOTE=bunguer;50960369]Males had a lower heart rate during stressful situations, suffered fewer urinary tract infections, and coped with landing better and females were less likely to suffer vision or hearing impairments.
In the study there were 477 male astronauts but only 57 female and the report stresses more data is needed to draw conclusions.
In short, this is a bad video and there's absolutely no way, at this point, to objectively draw the conclusion that the video makes.[/QUOTE]
He doesn't really reach a conclusion tho. He just wants to discuss the topic. That's why the title is a question and not a statement.
[editline]28th August 2016[/editline]
While I don't agree that only one gender should be sent to mars. It's interesting to know what different problems the sexes face in space.
[QUOTE=bunguer;50960369]Males had a lower heart rate during stressful situations, suffered fewer urinary tract infections, and coped with landing better and females were less likely to suffer vision or hearing impairments.
In the study there were 477 male astronauts but only 57 female and the report stresses more data is needed to draw conclusions.
In short, this is a bad video and there's absolutely no way, at this point, to objectively draw the conclusion that the video makes.[/QUOTE]
Not trying to shit on your post at all, very good points, but I would bet big bucks that the people who rated you winner don't agree with you based on the objective argument you've put forward.
[QUOTE=BusinessRed;50959749]I too thought the answer was no, but I decided not to be impulsive and not comment on a 10 minute minute video 1 minute after the thread was posted.[/QUOTE]
I like to think that this question didn't even deserve a video.
I don't buy that women use [I]half[/I] as much energy as men for the same activity (neither does the article he cites even claim that) - and definitely not if you control for their mass. I don't want to get too much into this, and while I'm not opposed to a mission only with women if the mission is more likely to be a success, it feels to me that he's cherry picking a bit (or a lot, I'd have to investigate the sources).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.