guynamedjames t1_j2bzmj3 wrote

Reply to comment by UmbralRaptor in Question by Psychological_Wheel2

This kinda demonstrates part of the issue with plans to colonize Mars or other planets. People look at mars with no ionosphere an atmosphere so thin it's basically a vacuum for all biological purposes and say "yeah, but it has land".

Yeah there's plenty of everything in space, but we're not running out of anything on earth, we're just polluting it. And it'll almost always be easier and cheaper to clean and use contaminated seawater for literally anything than it will be to drag heavy ass water from the outer planets or asteroid belt all the way back to earth.


guynamedjames t1_j205odu wrote

Yup, while free atmospheric oxygen is technically stable it's very reactive with most things, especially when you give it a little energy. Since life requires a ton of complex and ever changing chemical reactions to take place it really helps to have a reservoir of a very reactive substance around at all times. This also means that most atmospheric oxygen is one half of a reaction to free up chemical potential energy. So having an atmosphere made of half a battery isn't a bad thing either when talking about complex life.


guynamedjames t1_j1w0dsr wrote

You'll get your widest from interracial households, especially when you get multiple generations of interracial mixing. So your African grandma, dutch grandpa, Chinese grandma and Indian grandpa type families are realistically going to be very far apart generically. And within that, historically people from cities will have more diverse genes than those from the country


guynamedjames t1_j16fpbw wrote

I'm not sure how climate change wouldn't be relevant in the context of biology. Sure something like microbiology or cellular biology aren't going to change much but every ecosystem out there is changing or about to start changing. I'm sure a book on artic wildlife would feature climate change extensively, the fact that others aren't just means they're behind the ball.


guynamedjames t1_j115q2y wrote

This creates an interesting problem for accounting in the future. Future money is considered less valuable than present money so accountants will have to account for relativistic effects.

Mostly a joke but it creates an issue for funding long distance trips. If the passengers fund it, no problem. But if the funders stay behind they're unlikely to ever recoup their investments.


guynamedjames t1_j0wzbf7 wrote

Breathable air would most likely indicate life on that planet which would lead a bunch of headlines. Our atmospheric oxygen is formed from biological processes and on most planets free oxygen disappears quickly. Short and medium term every scientific instrument capable of getting data from that system and any others like it would be pointed in that direction and we would end up with some new missions being funded to further confirm the data. I would expect a lot of geologists giving interviews saying "we don't know for sure but we don't think it's geological in origin, but maybe".

Beyond that, it would come down to what else is found. It's a REALLY interesting finding for about a thousand different reasons, but potentially confirming life on other planets is at the top of that list. I'd expect people to ask for a probe to go out there, only to be disappointed by the few hundred years of proposed travel time.


guynamedjames t1_j0w902c wrote

I guess this is probably the best way to study the idea but I'm not sure how well you can map the results out long term from this study. This group of Chimps have evolved towards a tree dwelling environment and happen to be living near some plains but they're still starting from a tree dwelling specialized body. The human chimp common ancestor was less specialized, and perhaps would have acted in the predicted manner.

If we took this study to the logical extreme then chimps in the forest should be walking around bipedally in the trees, which they aren't.


guynamedjames t1_iy6bbl9 wrote

There's pretty solid evidence that even under perfect conditions people won't live past ~120. There's so many people on earth that you'd expect to see pretty much every outlier occur, and yet only one person ever cracked 120 (died at 122 I believe) and nearly all other ultra long lives have died in the 1-teens. So that's one area that we roughly know.


guynamedjames t1_iy5trw8 wrote

I wonder how world cup viewership is in Russia right now? I'm sure they're getting fed a ton of propaganda about how the West excluded them over bullshit reasons etc but I'm also sure they're going to talk about how the West isn't thrilled with Qatar. Maybe some Russians will put 2 and 2 together and realize that Qatar is pretty bad but we're letting them host, so Russia must be REALLY bad to not be allowed to play.


guynamedjames t1_iwgpzyl wrote

Drowning people aren't going for propulsion, they're basically trying to tread water. Your legs are very good at keeping you above water, and have the advantage that even without knowing how to "properly" kick your feet just moving them quickly will usually keep you afloat. Plus, it's not like they're going to stop using their arms.


guynamedjames t1_iwf691o wrote

The lifeguard test included diving to the bottom of a ten foot pool, recovering a brick, swimming to the surface, holding the brick above your head for some time (2 minutes maybe?) And then treading water without your arms for 10 minutes. It wasn't super easy but in my several years as a lifeguard I don't remember anyone failing


guynamedjames t1_iwehmye wrote

If we're throwing out one line of helpful information: if you ever think you're drowning KICK YOUR GOD DAMN LEGS.

I used to be a lifeguard and when people are panicky in the water they claw at the water to try and climb out of it. But they don't kick their legs. Your legs are the most powerful muscle groups on your body, drowning people use them as a weight to drown with. Swimming people use them to kick.


guynamedjames t1_iu24l7p wrote

Funny enough it's a pretty short book that doesn't require much attention span. Personally I don't think it's that great, I think the only reason it's so popular is that people who really like books find the idea of burning them so appalling that they feel the idea is worth the mediocre story.