2
$\begingroup$

It is important to tie up loose ends especially when in micro-gravity environment, we sure do not want to accidentally damage the delicate pieces of equipment crucial for keeping the spacers alive and happy. As enforcing a law on such trivial stuff can backfire[1], is there any real advantage to keep growing body hair in micro gravity environment?[2]

1 - as per user AlexP's comment.

2 - as per user Demigan's answer.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why not genetically engineer and breed generations of follicle-free spacers, so things won't go hairy on the frontier of space? $\endgroup$ – a4android Mar 3 at 6:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Laws are not intended for such purposes. If you want, you can start your own space travel company and enforce such an internal regulation. There is no law which say you cannot. $\endgroup$ – AlexP Mar 3 at 6:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You don't try to stop hair growing to stop the systems getting clogged, you seal the systems properly as that's a lot. lot easier. And how exactly do you enforce a law on human behavior when they're in space ? You can't exactly send a squad car after them (even if you know they have hair somewhere on their bodies). $\endgroup$ – StephenG Mar 3 at 8:04
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexP & Demigan: I've edited my question. $\endgroup$ – user6760 Mar 3 at 10:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is a misunderstanding. You are speaking about a law applicable to a trivial issue on private property. Legislators generally refuse to make laws applicable on private property unless they apply to very serious issues -- murder, theft, this kind of stuff. For example, the law which requires a person to have a valid driving license in order to drive a motor vehicle does not apply on private property. The regulations about speed limits, alcohol level etc. do not apply on private property. If surgeons are allowed to keep their hair, how could cosmonauts be lawfully deprived? $\endgroup$ – AlexP Mar 3 at 12:35
7
$\begingroup$

Such a law would be useless.

Aside from hair, a human body drops every day a lot of dead cells from its skin.

Your law would simply address the easier to remove residuals, while the nastier ones would still be there.

Incidentally, this is why any human accessing a microelectronic fab has to wear full gown: to prevent their body to pollute the environment with hair and dead cells.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

There surely are laws whose sole purpose is to protect property from people who could damage it simply by existing. With no concern whatsoever for the hardship and even medical damage that following the law could do.

But I wouldn't advocate for them.

The only way to turn a person who normally grows hair into one who does not is with a very serious systemic treatment such as chemotherapy. Enforce that as a counter to the hair and you'll be dealing with puke in all your delicate pieces of equipment. Not really an improvement.

You could also create scar tissue on all skin surfaces but that's not guaranteed to stop the hair and you'd run into little problems like kidney shutdown.

Products like Nair supposedly dissolve the hair that has exited the skin, but they don't really work that well and they leave a mess. It's the mess (the hair that is no longer attached to the body) that you're trying to avoid in the first place.

Waxing (or sugaring or tweezing) require hair that has at least an 1/8th or 1/4th inch of growing and pulls it out. A fair bit comes out that was not visible before, so it takes longer for the hair to grow back than if it were simply shaved. Wax and sugar also hold the hair bits so they're not very likely to create a mess.

There is no such thing as permanent waxing and it needs to be repeated every 6 weeks or so.

Electrolysis is a permanent hair removal method. You zap each hair with a special device. Most hairs require multiple treatments. You need to leave a few weeks in-between treatments to heal. Treatment plans can take a year or more.

But let's say it's the future and, along with space travel, we've invented safe, quick, and effective methods of removing hair either permanently or for an extended period of time. Then it certainly might be a company's prerogative to require employees or customers to be hair-free. But a law? To whose benefit is a law? The companies that own the delicate equipment?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Make it a an advantage.

Hairs are pretty big and easier to filter than all the dust that humans lose a lot. Alter the hairs of the spacers to be static or otherwise attract the dust their bodies lose every day. These dust-filled hairs make it easier to filter the air.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Body hair serves to protect our skin and bodily orifices from infectious agents and irritants. For example, for several years in the mid 20th century it was common practice in hospital to shave pubic hair for child birth . When post partum infection rates were compared, it became obvious that shaving contributed to negative health outcomes.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.