“Exposure to short duration gravity load changes including microgravity, as sustained in a parabolic flight statistically significantly decreases the sperm motility and vitality of human fresh sperm samples,” the team found, adding that this may have huge importance for any prolonged human settlement missions in space.

“In the future, should humans remain in space for long periods of time with exposure to different microgravity and hypergravity peaks, which could range from months to a number of years, reproduction may pose a problem to be tackled.”

The mechanism by which sperm motility was decreased remains unknown, with further study needed.

    • @NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      86 months ago

      I’m dyslexic and for a moment I was like. Why would you take people who work on boats on the vomit comet? Is it to see if their sealegs transfer to space?

      ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ disorders can be fun sometimes…

      Ps. Someone should do that study I mentioned.

  • @Francisco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    68
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    After sparing this paper a fair bit of attention I feel I’ve wasted it.

    Nowhere in the paper could i find in what conditions the test samples were kept during the experiment. This is pretty basic stuff. At this stage I’d wage sloshing was the issue.

    Reading this part of the methodology:

    "2.2 Initial sperm analysis

    After liquefaction…

    [Two paragraphs later, in the same section: ] After this first analysis, the 15 sperm samples were split into two fractions. All the samples were exposed to ‘Parabolic flight’ (split 1) and to…"

    Did they liquefied the samples and tested like that? Whaa?

    The “After this first analysis” should not be in the “2.2 Initial sperm analysis”. It just shouldn’t!

    Then I think “15 sperm samples were split into two fractions”. … “the samples were exposed to ‘Parabolic flight’ (split 1)” — splits, fractions, what a mess!! At this stage I’ve wasted enough.

    The paper should be retracted, the reviewers spanked and the editor fired.

  • 𞋴𝛂𝛋𝛆
    link
    fedilink
    English
    116 months ago

    Literally (fiction) speaking, I’ve randomly gambled on ~10 generations max before the population crashes if a generation ship arrives and fails to complete an O’Neill cylinder on the other side.

    Sound legit? 4am, going to bed, so no read.

  • @Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    96 months ago

    Can we please stop pretending that future space colonists will live their whole lives in microgravity? Nobody seriously suggests that as an option, that’s stupid. Countless studies have shown that for proper biological development, humans (and in fact nearly all organisms) need gravity. But for large space stations, spin gravity is actually not that freaking hard. If you can create a large enough station to support a sizable colony, it does not take much more engineering to make it spin.

  • JackGreenEarth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -136 months ago

    Why is creating more humans a good thing in a world with all this suffering?

        • Pennomi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          66 months ago

          The universe has plenty of room for more humans. There’s a shit ton of matter out there, if you can get to it.

          • JackGreenEarth
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -56 months ago

            No, I meant to say by there being suffering in the world, I meant in the universe, rather than specifically referring to this planet and there would be no human suffering in off Earth colonies.

            • @T156@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              56 months ago

              … Why not just say that then? It would save much confusion.

              It’d be hard to say whether there would be no suffering in off-world colonies, but I should doubt it. Traditionally, colonisation has been a dangerous thing, and human nature is as human nature does. The best you can do is reduce it so that what suffering does occur is either minor, or ineffectual.

              • JackGreenEarth
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -26 months ago

                Today I seem really terrible at saying what I mean! 🤣

                Whether on or off planet, humans anywhere will experience suffering, likely to an extent that far outweighs the pleasure they experience. Therefore it’s unethical to create more humans if your goal is reduction of suffering.

    • @angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      56 months ago

      I get you. But that’s life. Life wants to live and create more life. That’s what it’s about. The parts of life that ask why will be set aside and not used for the continuation of life.