We know the answer to that question already. Man will not survive in space in the long run with biological limitations. The ISS had essentially proven that.
There should be more interest and development in the quest to preserve and backup the brain in foundations such as http://www.brainpreservation.org/
The current conception of space travel as displayed in much of popular media is next to impossible and wrong. The biological factor will impede any of such fantasies.
The only way to sustain human space travel is to eliminate biology and replace it with technology.
> Man will not survive in space in the long run with biological limitations. The ISS had essentially proven that.
It did no such thing. It proved that survival in space is not as easy as we had hoped, and gave us a list of specific problems to tackle. Perhaps it will ultimately turn out to be impossible, at least with any technology feasible in the near future, but we're still far from certain.
Sorry that it took so long, but I had to find where they hung it up in my school (and it was finals week). Nonetheless, this is more of a poster on general issues of sending stuff with people in it into space for long periods of time (not ISS specific issues), but it's a fairly good general big-picture idea (IMHO):
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but we haven't really explored the full range possibilities of canned apes in space. For example, there are no centrifugal artificial-gravity generators anywhere in space - setting some up could show us whether the various problems with free-fall environments could be mitigated.
Life has survived this long in space with just air and a magnetic field as protection. What we have found is that we need good shielding and to simulate gravity. So at the simplest, we need a lot of mass and we need the bit we live in to spin. Also, biology and technology are not particularly separate. Stuff like Dyson trees should not be written off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_tree
Come on, it's 2015. Can we please stop with this sexist rhetoric? Particularly if you're talking about survival of the species, which definitely needs both genders.
When "man" is used without an article it means "mankind" - that is all humans, male and female. When used with an article ("a man") it indicates a male human.
Just to add, when we use man to mean humans as a whole, it comes from the old English mann which refers to a person of either gender, with wer (hence werewolf) and wif equivalent to current man and woman.
'black' comes from an old word for 'burned', but it would be silly to say that it still means the same thing. You wouldn't say that fashionistas like to wear burned clothing, for example.
So... you're effectively saying that using words like 'nigger' or 'dago' should be fine, since we all know what they mean in the modern context? Exclusionary language is fine because we all know what it means?
My point was that etymology (though interesting) is largely irrelevant to whether something is exclusionary or not. And it's a bit of a non-sequitor to point to the use of a word from a heavily sexist era as some sort of argument against it being sexist.
Words have a social affect beyond the pure literal meaning of them. And really, it's not hard to not use exclusionary language.
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence.
Are you saying that people continue to use those words (the second of which I don't recognize) in the same manner as they were used before, and that at the time those words were being used in a way that was not harmful?
I don't think that I am aware of that any common use of that word that matches those criteria, but I may be mistaken (I certainly have not thought this through).
I'd like to note that I wasn't necessarily claiming that using the word 'man' now for a certain purpose is not imperfect, just trying to note a difference between the compared circumstances. (This may have been influenced by a position, and perhaps the method of discussion I am using might be counterproductive, with all its qualifiers and fallbacks, but uh, hm.)
Now I am mostly trying to understand what you mean by this most recent message.
When you are talking about using a word from a heavily sexist era, are you talking about using 'man' from 'mann'? Also, are you saying that the use of the word 'mann' at that time was sexist?
If that is not what you meant, I apologize, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.
Finally, I agree that connotation and other properties of words can be harmful when the denotation would not be.
Which very well may be a sufficient reason to avoid the use of the word 'man' to mean a human of any gender.
(though, due to ignorance, _successfully_ avoiding all use of exclusionary language might be difficult? Though of course, avoiding any single instance of exclusionary language likely would not be hard.)
I note that my way of approaching these sorts of things might be harmful, with all the extra qualifiers everywhere, and a few other things like that.
However, I didn't really feel comfortable not responding at all, because I felt accused of saying something that I felt I had not said, and which I did not understand how it might follow from what I had said.
I hope that I have not engaged in moving any goalposts, or similar harmful rhetorical-ish stuff.
However, I feel I might have done so (though I am not sure exactly where), so I apologize if I have.
I meant that the argument "these words have meant the same thing for a long time" doesn't mean that the word is therefore okay to use. Similarly the etymology of the word doesn't mean it's okay either - 'nigger' comes from 'negro' which just means 'black', for example, but there's a hell of a lot of social baggage that goes with it.
No need to apologise, by the way, I didn't feel like words were put in my mouth by what you said. I just didn't see the arguments you put forward as meaning it's okay to use certain language - the same arguments work for slurs.
the second of which I don't recognize
It's a racial slur against Spanish folks in British English. Doesn't have the same impact as the other word, but it's still a slur.
Also, are you saying that the use of the word 'mann' at that time was sexist?
I am saying that at the time, women were second-class citizens and largely considered to be in the social background. There aren't a lot of women in the history books, for example. Saying that 'mann' meant all humans in an era when women weren't considered as equals doesn't give the word a lot of credit as a gender-neutral word.
It's a bit like how for a long time 'the UK' and 'England' were interchangeable. The UK had a couple of other countries in it that weren't England, but people frequently referred to the group of them as 'England'.
though, due to ignorance, _successfully_ avoiding all use of exclusionary language might be difficult
Difficult sure, but at the same time, still something to strive for. 'man' and 'mankind' are, at this point, purely rhetorical devices, both of which have plenty of alternatives.
>the argument "these words have meant the same thing for a long time" doesn't mean that the word is therefore okay to use
Nobody said that. The etymology was only brought up to show that 'man' being gender neutral is not a neologism that can be easily argued against.
I don't know why you brought up slurs at all. Using a term that focuses on a gender or race does not imply insulting anyone.
If you enunciate clearly you can probably use "negro" without upsetting anyone, and only getting odd looks for such an out-of-fashion term. Mentioning race is not where the social baggage is.
I don't know why you brought up slurs at all. Using a term that focuses on a gender or race does not imply insulting anyone.
Both sexist terms and racial slurs are exclusionary language, which is the point I was getting at. I never said that people were being insulted by man/mankind.
'Mankind' is also a sexist term, and it's easily modifiable to 'humankind'. 'Mankind' still puts one gender ahead of the other; 'man and others' is what it means.
The ironic thing is that people dismiss it as 'it doesn't really matter' as you've just done. If it doesn't matter that much, why persist in using it? Just change it to a more inclusive term and move on.
> 'Mankind' still puts one gender ahead of the other;
It is really the other way around, since "man" as meaning both genders is the more original meaning of the word. So there is nothing sexist about "mankind". However it was arguable sexist to use "a man" to mean "a male" rather than "a human".
'Humankind' is also a prejudice term, and it's easily modifiable to 'animal', 'collection of biological material', 'product of genetic material', or 'matter'.
It's unfortunate that you only chose the words you posted. You should have included all of the words, both known and unknown. It's unfortunate that prejudiced collections of subatomic particles such as yourself still do not believe in equality.
There should be more interest and development in the quest to preserve and backup the brain in foundations such as http://www.brainpreservation.org/
The current conception of space travel as displayed in much of popular media is next to impossible and wrong. The biological factor will impede any of such fantasies.
The only way to sustain human space travel is to eliminate biology and replace it with technology.