Men sailed the seas to find new lands not because they ran out of space, but because they want to explore and spread out. I don't think that it'll change in the future. As soon as economics allows, men will colonize space.
I'm not native speaker and I was taught that word "man" can be used as a synonym to "human". I just rechecked dictionary and it confirms that. So by men I meant exactly humans, I did not want to exclude women. Sorry.
The presence here of a large international community and many non-native English speakers is one of several reasons why we all need to be charitable about language. The HN guidelines address this:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Yes, and there's a good chance those who do make the trip will not be "natural" humans (as hibernation, zero-g adaptations, or increased lifespan would be invaluable in sub-light interstellar trips) or even biological, so…
I don't want to delegitimize your cause, but I always feel kind of trolled reading lines like yours.
> Women and nonbinary people will be there too.
You could type that to almost any content out there. A history of topology? Hopefully features humans of all shapes and sizes. Cough syrup in the far future? Will hopefully be available to humans of all shapes and sizes. I wonder, therefore, why even point this out?
A history of politics? Hopefully not only features humans of all shapes and sizes, but also, humans of all opinions - because, think about it, some shapes and sizes of humans might have more diverse opinions than others. And now things start to get complicated, because, of course, different humans already have different traits and talents. I somehow believe that I'm not a good political leader, therefore I, up and including today, kept my hands out of political business. Also, I don't want to take that kind of responsibility. Disregarding of whether that is right or wrong, people of my opinion on their own talent in political leadership would stay painfully underrepresented in history books about political matters, and I can't help but think how that could supposedly be anything but fine.
So, help me, if you mind: why point out the obvious, again?
