this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
73 points (100.0% liked)

Space

7242 readers
5 users here now

News and findings about our cosmos.


Subcommunity of Science


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ApeNo1@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Was this simulation just based on population growth or did it also take into account genetic variation which I believe is also critical for certain aspects of a species survival?

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could have read the article. It's based on technical skills, social situations. Not long term population growth.

[–] ApeNo1@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For me it is the terminology. I thought colonisation was the long term goal of staying more permanently vs a mission which is for a finite period such as this simulation. Had not seen the 28 year limit which makes it more a mission than colonisation. Happy to be corrected.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

yeah, but then the headline would not be so clickbaity and attracted less clicks than this "new alabama" suggestion. what are you not getting there? it wasn't mistake 😂

[–] delawen@floss.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@ApeNo1 @throws_lemy Genetic variation is not an issue. Just send frozen embryos.

They are probably going to be all cis women, anyway (we are the smaller ones consuming less resources).

[–] Kajo@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

Nah, we'll just build a bigger spaceship so we can send 22 penis on mars.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

None of the above. New colonists were randomly generated by the environment for a 28 year simulation.