The human heart shows signs of ageing after just a month in space
nature.com
nature.com
I could give four examples that are already available synthetically but not acceptable to payment processors due to widespread disgust, but I suspect it's unwise to knowingly suggest here things that trigger most people's disgust reflexes.
Point being, such a "landlord" will happily take your maple syrup and let you do approximately whatever on the land you lease from their tribe. They won't mind a "commercial food-grade bioreactor lab" because they have neither a reference point for it, nor a use for one, but because of that you'll also need to provide your own infrastructure and supplies somehow.
(Also first time around, I read it as "food-grade bioreactor" without the "lab" bit, so I imagined setting up a shed with some fancy biotech equipment; now I see you probably meant a manufacturing plant.)
My reference point for this kind of thing would be the Quorn factories.
BNPL? Worldcoin? Flow? Juul?
By Now Pay Later? I don't see how that will help…
Likewise I have no idea what you mean by "Flow": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow
Worldcoin might be an example of this, hard to tell from here how much of its issues are fundamental vs. implementation.
Juul, the e-cigarette company, almost certainly isn't — too many people smoke for that to be the case, even with the way they were advertised at teens.
There's value in not being too closely related to your food supply.
Presumably one would exclude protein classes prone to prionic misfolding from the synthetic meat. Personally, I have no moral qualms with someone sampling lab-grown human flesh, though I’d probably pass.
https://www.snexplores.org/article/how-year-space-affected-s...
Also his mental abilities recovered back to baseline some time after.
Is ageing here defined as: "nutrients in my Petri dish are going exhaust so I will go pop"?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2024/04/08/pregnancy...
Maybe science will come up with something.
Maybe in 0g it is possible to find a better balance with lower baseline stress, with regular high-stress periods. But any ideas on how to even reach earth-equivalent levels of healthiness require much better space stations than what we have or build today
Imagine a mechanical arm whose purpose is to put constant hydraulic pressure against a platform that is putting pressure towards the arm. Now imagine what happens when you take away the platform - the arm would likely damage itself unless specifically designed to handle the lack of pressure.
There have been so very few space denizens, the science is in its infancy.
Space travel itself could be changed. For instance, a rocket to Mars may swing the habitat in a circle at the end of a miles-long wire to create artificial gravity. To those that claim 'acceleration is different from gravity', take your physics course again.
And people can be changed. It took a special kind of person to live at high altitude, and on an island with periodic feast-and-famine, and on a 2000 calorie rice diet, and in a crowded city, and on a submarine.
We can imagine (and often have in science fiction) a person built to crew long space missions. And we can imagine space missions designed for humans. Right now it's all in early days.
Not to mention the liability and really bad P.R. when human lives are lost in that pursuit.
Anyway, the Cambrian explosion shows how life can fill any ecological niche from ocean-bottom sulfur vents to mountaintops, from the stratosphere to mudpots in Yellowstone.
We don't have to wait for that. Lots of science fiction about making people to fit the world. An obvious solution, and already we're gaining the tools to do it.
Radiation, that one is difficult. Water barrier? Magentic bottle? harder.
What other issues? The 'submarine' one has been largely solved, for, you know, submarine crews.
The physics course, at least if it includes General Relativity, will tell you that what the human body is used to is not gravity but acceleration. The astronauts in free fall in the ISS are fully responding to Earth's gravity; the difference between them and the rest of us stuck here on the Earth's surface is that we are feeling acceleration, because the Earth's surface is pushing upward on us, and they are not.
The potential issue with having a spaceship habitat swinging in a circle to create acceleration is the Coriolis effect; that would make it feel at least somewhat different from being on the Earth's surface, even if the magnitude of the acceleration were 1 g. That might cause something like motion sickness in some people--but then again, so does free fall. (I myself don't even like roller coasters, so I would probably be a very poor candidate for being a free-fall astronaut.)
Earth also rotates, and thus the Coriolis effect is present. It's not as noticeable as in a fast-rotating habitat in space, but air navigation, naval navigation, and artillery all make adjustments for it, among other factors, especially at high latitudes.
I'm not sure what you mean. In GR the two are equivalent, period. There is no open issue there.
> Earth also rotates, and thus the Coriolis effect is present.
Yes, but on the scale of a human it is far, far too tiny to be detectable. So it doesn't make a difference to what humans experience on Earth, even though, as you note, there are scenarios in which it has to be taken into account.
In a space habitat swinging around to provide artificial acceleration, however, I think the Coriolis effect on a human would be large enough to be detectable by the human. At least unless you made the length of the cable it was swinging on of the same order as the radius of the Earth, i.e., thousands of kilometers, which is not likely to be practical.
Indeed, in a small enough rotating habitat, jumping straight up would reveal the direction of rotation, and jumping "forward" and "backward" would have noticeably different results.
There's hoping though that the mechanisms which under zero g make the bones lose calcium, make tissues with a lot of small blood vessels swell, etc, won't be as seriously affected by the small variations introduced by the Coriolis effect as they are affected by the lack of weight and the pressure resulting from the weight. Solving 100.00% of a problem would be wonderful, but solving roughly 90% would already be highly beneficial.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Einstein...
No, it's not, it's a necessary part of the way GR models gravity as spacetime curvature with the metric being the only "field" associated with gravity. You can't do that and have inertial and gravitational masses being different. I guess you could call modeling gravity as spacetime curvature with the metric being the only "field" associated with gravity an assumption, but it's an assumption that has a lot more consequences than just the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. So the latter is not usefully viewed as an "assumption" in GR by itself. It's one of many consequences of a much broader assumption that is the entire basis of the theory.
It is true that there are other theories of gravity that use spacetime curvature, but they all have additional fields besides the spacetime metric that are associated with gravity. And all of them known so far are ruled out by experiment, or at least the only region of their parameter spaces that are compatible with experiment make the extra fields observationally meaningless and the theories become equivalent to GR in all their predictions.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070001008/downloads/20...
More precisely an acceleration gradient, at least in the terminology I was using in my previous post. Yes, this is a good point.
WTF would that actually even be, submarines have cca surface pressure, maybe you meant adaptation to generally shitty soulless draining more stresful environments? Again, nothing like that out there in gene pool, city folks generally love running away to the nature as much as they can, at least those who already experienced how healing and recharging it can be and can afford it.
And every human in existence has been adapted over the last 50K years for tribal, village and city conditions. Early hominids were very different - hairier, loners, more fractious, used more calories, communicated less.
AMH (anatomically modern humans) have co-evolved with crowded conditions, to live in groups and tolerate each other without killing one another. So maybe three modifiers on that was hyperbole.
50k years is a blink in the context of evolution. You're looking exclusively at cultural adaptations in this timeframe.
Humans have evolved more in the last 50K years than in the 1M preceeding that. I'm talking about biological adaptation, though you bring up a reasonable point that cultural adaptation is another tool to help bring success.
Evolution of some trait as adaptation to environment vs selecting by test from general population with variable levels of traits are completely different things.
The other points are in same vein, no point wasting more time.
There's multiple reasons why but one that stands out in my mind is the sheer difference in trajectories between a species that embraces spacefaring and comes to live on multiple worlds compared to a species that remains confined to its point of origin. In the long term, the former of those two will eventually fan out to other star systems and explore countless more modes of existence, structuring of societies, ways of expression, avenues of science, etc than the latter can ever hope to. Staying put stymies potential to an extent that's difficult to even comprehend.