• Texas Congressman Says US Should Not Make Gay Space Colonies
    59 replies, posted
discussing the important issues facing america, like what the most efficient staffing is for a spacecraft that couldn't possibly exist for centuries to protect humanity from an astronomically unlikely scenario
This congress dude probably spends an awful lot of time thinking about a space colony far, far away from civilization populated with nothing but the kinkiest of gays
[QUOTE=catbarf;50402842]I [I]guess[/I] I can see the logic behind only putting young, fertile, healthy, heterosexual people on a spaceship meant to survive the actual end of Earth but what the [I]fuck[/I] is the relevance to anything and what the fuck does a Noah's Ark spaceship have to do with trans people and gay marriage in the real world? (also staffing a colony on, say, Mars with only gay people seems like a solid way to prevent an unwanted and unplanned for pregnancy so gg)[/QUOTE] No actually there is no logic, an ark scenario should actually have as many women as you can cram on it, with a few men and tons of frozen eggs and sperm. Basically if you cannot fit 10,000 people on a ship, fit as many as you can and then make sure you have 10,000 people's worth of genetic material.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50407784]No actually there is no logic, an ark scenario should actually have as many women as you can cram on it, with a few men and tons of frozen eggs and sperm. Basically if you cannot fit 10,000 people on a ship, fit as many as you can and then make sure you have 10,000 people's worth of genetic material.[/QUOTE] I remember some book where humanity had to survive underground with only a few hundred or so people and in order to survive, they basically assigned each sexually mature male a handful of women to breed with in order to spread the gene pool safely. [editline]28th May 2016[/editline] Though the only current Mars transport ship being seriously worked on is designed to carry 100 colonists per trip. It shouldn't be an issue as long as we're not rushing to escape some catastrophe.
If it was a last ditch colony ship to some far off star that would take generations, then I can see the utilitarian benefits of such a policy.. but, to paint any sort of colonization effort in that way, you'd have to be utterly insane. [QUOTE=OvB;50408236]I remember some book where humanity had to survive underground with only a few hundred or so people and in order to survive, they basically assigned each sexually mature male a handful of women to breed with in order to spread the gene pool safely. [/QUOTE] An interesting read into Aboriginal Australian culture: [url]http://www.aboriginalartonline.com/culture/moieties.php[/url] The Aboriginal Australians used this method to avoid inbreeding - and shared sons and daughters between a separate moiety.
This is incredible. Like, it's five minutes of sheer lunacy, but it's AMAZING lunacy.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50408277]This is incredible. Like, it's five minutes of sheer [B]luna[/B]cy, but it's AMAZING [B]luna[/B]cy.[/QUOTE] [sp]Poignant word choice.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Bradyns;50408285][sp]Poignant word choice.[/sp][/QUOTE] That was for hetero eyes only. Please ensure no gays notice.
[QUOTE=OvB;50408236]I remember some book where humanity had to survive underground with only a few hundred or so people and in order to survive, they basically assigned each sexually mature male a handful of women to breed with in order to spread the gene pool safely. [editline]28th May 2016[/editline] Though the only current Mars transport ship being seriously worked on is designed to carry 100 colonists per trip. It shouldn't be an issue as long as we're not rushing to escape some catastrophe.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure you're thinking of dr. Strange love there In any case, again artificial insemination (something that never occurred to early SF writers) makes the case that men are the backup plan, because you can store tons of sperm, artificial wombs are still far away from reality today so women will be critical for reproduction but also basic maintenance and growth of the colony. Ironically, stuffy old white men would not be a major consideration, and the colony would be by definition a matriarchy
Did he get this idea from a sci-fi gay porno or something?
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;50408504]Did he get this idea from a sci-fi gay porno or something?[/QUOTE] Perhaps he's worried about the [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayniggers_from_Outer_Space]Gayniggers from Outer Space[/url]. The Conservative nightmare doomsday.
[QUOTE=dai;50403202]while colonies are a different story, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind people that [B]you pretty much can't get a boner in microgravity[/B] and that's the real tragedy of our future in exploring new ways and places to have fun[/QUOTE] You can't?
How the fuck are people like this even allowed into politics.
[QUOTE=Source;50409054]How the fuck are people like this even allowed into politics.[/QUOTE] money
Sex is far too hit-or-miss in terms of guaranteeing births anyway. If the mission depended on people getting pregnant, we'd use artificial insemination, and sexuality doesn't affect that in any way.
This is why democracy exists. To spread the crazy thin. Can you imagine what would happen if this guy was dictator? [QUOTE]How the fuck are people like this even allowed into politics.[/QUOTE] Garbage in, Garbage out. When you have shit stain voters, you get shit stain politicians.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;50410421]Sex is far too hit-or-miss in terms of guaranteeing births anyway. If the mission depended on people getting pregnant, we'd use artificial insemination, and sexuality doesn't affect that in any way.[/QUOTE] The ultimate shot to the gut for this dude is that the best way of ensuring the future of the human race would be an all-female crew with the broadest genetic diversity possible, and that sexual preference would be completely irrelevant. You could cram that ship full of nothing but lesbian minorities, and it would be infinitely more viable than a heterosexual couples ship of the same population sample. That is, like, the GOP's worst nightmare.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50411753]The ultimate shot to the gut for this dude is that the best way of ensuring the future of the human race would be an all-female crew with the broadest genetic diversity possible, and that sexual preference would be completely irrelevant. You could cram that ship full of nothing but lesbian minorities, and it would be infinitely more viable than a heterosexual couples ship of the same population sample. That is, like, the GOP's worst nightmare.[/QUOTE] But women can't go to space! They have hollow bones!
It's like his otaku nephew showed him Gundam and now he's afraid of gay Zeon or gay Coordinators dropping colonies
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;50412164]But women can't go to space! They have hollow bones![/QUOTE] Worse than that, they could be propelled across the spacecraft through menstration [Sp]an actual that concern was used to justify barring women from the Apollo program but ultimately proved pointless since it doesn't happen and everybody wears diapers anyways[/sp]
Wouldn't their eggs be affected by the space radiation? Wouldnt be easier to have in vito tanks?
[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50417761]Wouldn't their eggs be affected by the space radiation? Wouldnt be easier to have in vito tanks?[/QUOTE] With current or near current tech we simply cannot recreate the conditions in a womb Like they can barely gestate baby sharks who develop inside a stomach, mammal artificial wombs are decades off currently
[QUOTE=Riller;50403023]Depending on the sort of space colony, gay people only missions might be a bit of an upside. You ain't gonna prevent people from doin' the no-pants-hanky-panky no matter how hard you try, and having kids popping out left and right on a mission where everyone has a vital role and measured supplies doesn't seem like a good idea. Bein' gay and having gay sex is a pretty good compromise of 'letting people fuck' and 'making sure babies don't happen'.[/QUOTE] The alternative is to do the sensible thing and give people long term contraceptives. You know the thing that's well understood and has been used in the past. Not to mention it's actively used on animals in zoos as well.
I wonder what effects there would be on a space baby, like, would they be formed differently or something?
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50418686]I wonder what effects there would be on a space baby, like, would they be formed differently or something?[/QUOTE] They would probably never learn to walk unless we can simulate gravity
[QUOTE=Sableye;50417892]With current or near current tech we simply cannot recreate the conditions in a womb Like they can barely gestate baby sharks who develop inside a stomach, mammal artificial wombs are decades off currently[/QUOTE] What conditions can't they re-create, I wonder? Get a sealed tank with amniotic fluid or some facsimile, tube to introduce nutrients and remove waste.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;50419422]They would probably never learn to walk unless we can simulate gravity[/QUOTE] Put the baby in a sling and spin it around in circles for at least 3 hours a day to ensure proper development
Pastor Richards is that you?
[QUOTE=Sableye;50417892]baby sharks who develop inside a stomach[/QUOTE] wait how does that work
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.