NationStates Jolt Archive

No, I was acting alone for a couple of posts. With a first post like that, you REALLY THINK your going to get big ol happy results from everyone?


Welcome to the world, it's full of opinions.

Well you no what they say abouit opinions

Welcome to the grown-up world. Not only is it full of opinions, it's full of respect, politeness, and courtesy.
Welcome to reality. It's hell, hope you brought a hat.

And others can disagree with yours, without "trampling" over your rights.
Whatever happened to the spiral of silence?
At any rate, didn't you say something about leaving and going to sleep?
yeah till Dobbs decided to freak out!


Now I'm just freely increasing my post number and entertaining myself.

Now if you Gents don't mind ... or even if you do ... I'd like to get this thread back on track. So if you can't take the topic seriously then consider yourselfs invited to leave.

And others can disagree with yours, without "trampling" over your rights.
Whatever happened to the spiral of silence?
At any rate, didn't you say something about leaving and going to sleep?

Oh good, maybe if I stay up half the night, I might be able to have a conversation that's on topic and not about colodia, jayastan, or any of the other thugs who've decided to derail this thread.

Now if you Gents don't mind ... or even if you do ... I'd like to get this thread back on track. So if you can't take the topic seriously then consider yourselfs invited to leave.
So what's your statement and I'd be happy to intelligently respond to it with my two cents.

Okay, I'm going to briefly cover a few points I saw brought up.
Sexual reproduction. Why is it a good idea?
Let us have creature A, which reproduces asexually. It's offspring are creature A, creature A, creature A, and creature a (which is some strange mutant).
We shall also have creatures Aa and AB, which reproduce sexually.
They make AA, AB, aA, and aB.
Now it just so happens that the environment is not stupid enough for creatures with the mutant "a" gene to survive. The asexual a creature fails to evade predation, and there are no survivors. However aA's A knows what to do, and aB's B has a different but still effective response.
The sexual creatures evolve much much faster.

Now that we're up to being sexual creatures, we need to explain genders. Why can't we all just be herms? Well, that would be fun, yes but...
In the beginning, the problem was how in the hell are you supposed to find another of your species in this giant sea of life?
A disparity evolved. Certain organisms grew larger, sacrificing mobility for findability. Others grew small and fast, cruising quickly to seek out these large targets. The most findable females reproduced. The fastest males reproduced. The divergence was enhanced.

And that's why we have genders, boys and girls. A man's entire body, his hair, his head, his fingernails, his feet, all his thoughts, dreams, goals, and ambitions, and even his consciousness and some would say soul... are a giant robot designed to carry you, a small fast speck in your nuts, as quickly and safely as possible to find the large slow cell embedded in another giant robot.

So why is the Y shrinking? Why are male and female beginning to resemble each other more closely again?
It's simple. When was the last time you went out and fought off a tiger trying to eat your babies? When was the last time you wrestled a five-hundred pound boar to the ground and tore its throat out to feed your family?
We are devolving. In our society, the sick, the feeble, the injured, the horrid, the wretched, the unfit... survive. They breed. Men are infertile. And instead of dying, we have drugs and artificial insemination.

Do we need men?
At this point? Not particularly. The need has faded to a simplicity and an ease. It's a lot cheaper to have some guy give you a kid. If women adapt themselves into herms, that will be more efficient still, since now there is no need to keep things seperate. We don't need the giant robots to be so specialized anymore.

But...?
But that doesn't solve the problem. Where are your claws? Your thick hide? Your muscles that can snap thick trees with a backhand blow? Your fangs? Our technology has made it so that we don't need the giant robots anymore AT ALL. And nature will NOT pay the electric bill for something it doesn't use. We are not strong. We are are not immune to desease. We cannot fight. Because those things are not needed for survival. Technology and civilization has changed the definition of fitness, and human devolution has set in to make it so. Soon enough, we will melt back into the sea, while technology continues without us, doing everything we decided was worth doing.

Because the fact of the matter is we don't need men... and we don't need women either.

yeah till Dobbs decided to freak out!


Now I'm just freely increasing my post number and entertaining myself.

I'd be delighted if you could point out where she "trampled" over your rights.

yeah till Dobbs decided to freak out!


Now I'm just freely increasing my post number and entertaining myself.

Fine. Outta here. I won't give you the satisfaction you smug PRICK.

Fine. Outta here. I won't give you the satisfaction you smug PRICK.
Your going? Too bad, I was going to wait for something intelligent to pass by so that I can contribute to the thread. But whatever, I guess I'm a prick now.

K, Dobbs Town, My *ignore* feature is turned on now... back to the true meaning of the thread!

K, Dobbs Town, My *ignore* feature is turned on now... back to the true meaning of the thread!
:rolleyes:

Doesn't read I guess.

So what's your statement and I'd be happy to intelligently respond to it with my two cents.

Did you even bother to read the article. When you do I would appreciate it
if your two cents were an intelligent unbiased response

Okay, I'm going to briefly cover a few points I saw brought up.
Sexual reproduction. Why is it a good idea?
Let us have creature A, which reproduces asexually. It's offspring are creature A, creature A, creature A, and creature a (which is some strange mutant).
We shall also have creatures Aa and AB, which reproduce sexually.
They make AA, AB, aA, and aB.
Now it just so happens that the environment is not stupid enough for creatures with the mutant "a" gene to survive. The asexual a creature fails to evade predation, and there are no survivors. However aA's A knows what to do, and aB's B has a different but still effective response.
The sexual creatures evolve much much faster.

Now that we're up to being sexual creatures, we need to explain genders. Why can't we all just be herms? Well, that would be fun, yes but...
In the beginning, the problem was how in the hell are you supposed to find another of your species in this giant sea of life?
A disparity evolved. Certain organisms grew larger, sacrificing mobility for findability. Others grew small and fast, cruising quickly to seek out these large targets. The most findable females reproduced. The fastest males reproduced. The divergence was enhanced.

And that's why we have genders, boys and girls. A man's entire body, his hair, his head, his fingernails, his feet, all his thoughts, dreams, goals, and ambitions, and even his consciousness and some would say soul... are a giant robot designed to carry you, a small fast speck in your nuts, as quickly and safely as possible to find the large slow cell embedded in another giant robot.

So why is the Y shrinking? Why are male and female beginning to resemble each other more closely again?
It's simple. When was the last time you went out and fought off a tiger trying to eat your babies? When was the last time you wrestled a five-hundred pound boar to the ground and tore its throat out to feed your family?
We are devolving. In our society, the sick, the feeble, the injured, the horrid, the wretched, the unfit... survive. They breed. Men are infertile. And instead of dying, we have drugs and artificial insemination.

Do we need men?
At this point? Not particularly. The need has faded to a simplicity and an ease. It's a lot cheaper to have some guy give you a kid. If women adapt themselves into herms, that will be more efficient still, since now there is no need to keep things seperate. We don't need the giant robots to be so specialized anymore.

But...?
But that doesn't solve the problem. Where are your claws? Your thick hide? Your muscles that can snap thick trees with a backhand blow? Your fangs? Our technology has made it so that we don't need the giant robots anymore AT ALL. And nature will NOT pay the electric bill for something it doesn't use. We are not strong. We are are not immune to desease. We cannot fight. Because those things are not needed for survival. Technology and civilization has changed the definition of fitness, and human devolution has set in to make it so. Soon enough, we will melt back into the sea, while technology continues without us, doing everything we decided was worth doing.

Because the fact of the matter is we don't need men... and we don't need women either.

Applause, that's all I can say. Like it.

Rkyeun: interesting point. Perhaps we could, instead of being left behind by our own technology (machines taking over?), we could master it instead, and remake ourselves. As a species, we are supposed to be creative. So maybe, instead of falling back on the old forms--male, female, and things in between--which may not be needed anymore, we could be our own canvas. Redefine what it means to be human, so that the concept "human" is no longer tied to our physical forms. Sounds weird to some, but I would not mind being able to make my body into the expression of my innermost nature, rather than being constrained BY Nature.
If we can reproduce by other means, and reliably, then one major reason for looking as we do is tossed into the scrapheap. What's left is what we want and need, rather than the dictates of some external natural force, which may not have our best interests at heart. :)

Your going? Too bad, I was going to wait for something intelligent to pass by so that I can contribute to the thread. But whatever, I guess I'm a prick now.

Did you read the article yet?

Well, I wasn't able to read the entire article. But I read from "Importantly, the baby girls would not be clones" to the end. I think I got the gist of it.


The idea seems pretty decent, some minor flaws here and there, but overall a good idea. I just don't know why such a procedure needs to be considered at the moment if there are still at least two thousand years before we need to be on a major alert. And considering how quick technology goes, doesn't it seem more likely that genetic engineering would allow for this decaying of the Y chromosome (still don't fully understand the reasons for the decay) to be fixed? I'm sure the world doesn't want to suddenly go lesbian, because I'm quite sure a majority of females have an interest in males. Genetic engineering that stops the decaying process would allow the human race to continue living by the 50/50 choice, rather than going one way or another.

Unless I missed something in the article that says that fixing the Y chromosome is a stupid idea, I think that sounds sound.

I'll wait for anybody and anything for 5 minutes, and then I'm off. Seriously, I gotta wake up in like 5 hours and this is just intimidating my brain.

Well, I wasn't able to read the entire article. But I read from "Importantly, the baby girls would not be clones" to the end. I think I got the gist of it.


The idea seems pretty decent, some minor flaws here and there, but overall a good idea. I just don't know why such a procedure needs to be considered at the moment if there are still at least two thousand years before we need to be on a major alert. And considering how quick technology goes, doesn't it seem more likely that genetic engineering would allow for this decaying of the Y chromosome (still don't fully understand the reasons for the decay) to be fixed? I'm sure the world doesn't want to suddenly go lesbian, because I'm quite sure a majority of females have an interest in males. Genetic engineering that stops the decaying process would allow the human race to continue living by the 50/50 choice, rather than going one way or another.

Unless I missed something in the article that says that fixing the Y chromosome is a stupid idea, I think that sounds sound.

I'll wait for anybody and anything for 5 minutes, and then I'm off. Seriously, I gotta wake up in like 5 hours and this is just intimidating my brain.

I have to be at work at 8:00am so we are in the same boat hon. The reason
for starting now is because the government isn't as fast as the technological
advancements so where they are concerned I'd say we barely have enough time to finish the job.

Technology is just an extension of ourselves. Yes it has altered us physically, but so has selective breeding. Perhaps it's true that there is a larger component of our population that is weak, or sick, or who wouldn't have been tossed off a cliff in ancient Greece.

But Margaret Mead was once asked what she considered the first sign of an emerging humanity, and she replied, to much surprise, 'a mended femur'. Asked why that would be the case, she went on to say that a mended femur would indicate that a hominid, badly injured to the point of being immobile, was tended and cared for by other of it's kind. An act of kindness, of love, superseding base needs or instincts.

That is what we carry inside our hearts today, that is what we bring with us as we continue to evolve - and remember evolution is as much about adapting or responding to external conditions as following some 'mystical' or 'divine' plan. If our genders are becoming less distinct, if the Y chromosone is degenerating, if there is increasingly less 'breathing room' for excessive buildups of testosterone, then maybe what the other poster called 'devolution' is, really, after all is said n done, just evolution after all.

one thing is certain - we aren't close to finishing evolving. long may our species live, whatever gender identity we embrace.

That said I think I will turn in as well. But I will be back on tomorrow after
Five pm eastern standard.


Nite All

It's after five PM where I'm from. Thought I'd just turn the lights on

*flick*

I can't hang right now, things to do. I'll be back, though...

In theory no, however, in just about all parthenigenic species (ie Mourning Gecko) there are problems. What these problems boil down to is lack of genetic diversity. Basically all parthingenic organisms are, are clones of themselves.
and I am very sorry for posting this...

Sorry, I should point something out...
This theory IS NOT just 'plunk' but it's actually based on substantial evidence and is widely accepted across the biology field. But most biologists also agree that mutations will occur in the females as well. But it is natural to have a male and a female, and nature will continue this course unless we go through a dramatic change to the point that we become an entirely different species and classification.
And I want to really point something else out that I'm going to get a lot of flack for...
WOMEN ARE NOT EQUAL TO MEN. But this works Vice Versa. We are a species where the females and males have a series of checks and balances. Men are built to be labourers, and women are built for delicate work - thin fingers, a lack of broad shoulders, even hips that aren't as efficient for running (a man's hips are built like a piston). Does that mean that men are stronger, more resistant to pain, etc? Hell no - after all, women -do- give birth (which, sadly, is part of what makes them less superior for hard labour). But does that mean that women can't be as strong as men? Again, no. We're just built for it.
There are different types of superiority. Jean-Jacques Rousseau pointed out that there will inevitably be biological superiority, but overall, we are all equal and have the ability to rise up against detriments.
Just my few thoughts.

Sorry, I should point something out...
This theory IS NOT just 'plunk' but it's actually based on substantial evidence and is widely accepted across the biology field. But most biologists also agree that mutations will occur in the females as well. But it is natural to have a male and a female, and nature will continue this course unless we go through a dramatic change to the point that we become an entirely different species and classification.
And I want to really point something else out that I'm going to get a lot of flack for...
WOMEN ARE NOT EQUAL TO MEN. But this works Vice Versa. We are a species where the females and males have a series of checks and balances. Men are built to be labourers, and women are built for delicate work - thin fingers, a lack of broad shoulders, even hips that aren't as efficient for running (a man's hips are built like a piston). Does that mean that men are stronger, more resistant to pain, etc? Hell no - after all, women -do- give birth (which, sadly, is part of what makes them less superior for hard labour). But does that mean that women can't be as strong as men? Again, no. We're just built for it.
There are different types of superiority. Jean-Jacques Rousseau pointed out that there will inevitably be biological superiority, but overall, we are all equal and have the ability to rise up against detriments.
Just my few thoughts.


I perfer to think that we Compliment each other, instead of one or the other
being superior.

I'm somehow doubting it matters at the moment, since i don't think this will occur in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime.

The human race is engineered to have men. Women would start feeling lonely without them.

Also, to those who say men will have no "strength" use soon: well, it's well known that men are far superior in mechanical aptitude, leadership and intellectual capacity than women. *Only joking!*

But seriously: men are half of society. If you pull them all out, the society will not function as well because it has been built around men and women both. Besides, the Y-chromosone can be used to good effect: defence. I always thought that women were actually more evil and vicious under…

ok you asked for it...this goes to the writer of the artical...some foul words will be used warning

People like you piss me off, what the hell is wrong with you? if you are a guy then you are the dumbest and more retarded person i have heard, if you a chick then fuck off. where you poeple have the right to say that me as a man is less is of man then 100 years ago, there was another group that thought that they had better genes, does the nazis ring any bells, i dont know bout you but i havent been sick in 10 years and before that i have not been sick more then i handful of times.
poeple get sick because they are too clean we kill all the grems around us so when our body's get some it doesnt know what the hell to do.

but to get back on track maybe you should have seen what would of happened if you had do we really need back people because its the same god dam fucking thing. i dont care if you didnt write this shit yourself, your just as fucking bad for pasting it here, do we really need you , hell no so fuck off

if this seem harsh maybe you should talk to me in person because then i could yell at you, then you would see how violent man can be you fuckhead
go to hell before you piss off 48% of the worlds population

Do we really need men?
Hell no.

ok you asked for it...this goes to the writer of the artical...some foul words will be used warning

People like you piss me off, what the hell is wrong with you? if you are a guy then you are the dumbest and more retarded person i have heard, if you a chick then fuck off. where you poeple have the right to say that me as a man is less is of man then 100 years ago, there was another group that thought that they had better genes, does the nazis ring any bells, i dont know bout you but i havent been sick in 10 years and before that i have not been sick more then i handful of times.
poeple get sick because they are too clean we kill all the grems around us so when our body's get some it doesnt know what the hell to do.

but to get back on track maybe you should have seen what would of happened if you had do we really need back people because its the same god dam fucking thing. i dont care if you didnt write this shit yourself, your just as fucking bad for pasting it here, do we really need you , hell no so fuck off

if this seem harsh maybe you should talk to me in person because then i could yell at you, then you would see how violent man can be you fuckhead
go to hell before you piss off 48% of the worlds population


Keep it up bucky and I'm going to ask the Mods to explain to you why you
shouldn't use language like that in these forums. Now I'm only going to say this once, if you can't post something that shows even a small bit of intelligence without all the colorful metaphores you are invited to leave my thread .... UNDERSTAND?

Hi Phaerime, I haven't read the recent posts, I just got here. What's doing?

ok you asked for it...this goes to the writer of the artical...some foul words will be used warning

People like you piss me off, what the hell is wrong with you? if you are a guy then you are the dumbest and more retarded person i have heard, if you a chick then fuck off. where you poeple have the right to say that me as a man is less is of man then 100 years ago, there was another group that thought that they had better genes, does the nazis ring any bells, i dont know bout you but i havent been sick in 10 years and before that i have not been sick more then i handful of times.
poeple get sick because they are too clean we kill all the grems around us so when our body's get some it doesnt know what the hell to do.

but to get back on track maybe you should have seen what would of happened if you had do we really need back people because its the same god dam fucking thing. i dont care if you didnt write this shit yourself, your just as fucking bad for pasting it here, do we really need you , hell no so fuck off

if this seem harsh maybe you should talk to me in person because then i could yell at you, then you would see how violent man can be you fuckhead
go to hell before you piss off 48% of the worlds population

Are you sure you're not Jayastan? You sound like Jayastan...

ok you asked for it...this goes to the writer of the artical...some foul words will be used warning

People like you piss me off, what the hell is wrong with you? if you are a guy then you are the dumbest and more retarded person i have heard, if you a chick then fuck off. where you poeple have the right to say that me as a man is less is of man then 100 years ago, there was another group that thought that they had better genes, does the nazis ring any bells, i dont know bout you but i havent been sick in 10 years and before that i have not been sick more then i handful of times.
poeple get sick because they are too clean we kill all the grems around us so when our body's get some it doesnt know what the hell to do.

but to get back on track maybe you should have seen what would of happened if you had do we really need back people because its the same god dam fucking thing. i dont care if you didnt write this shit yourself, your just as fucking bad for pasting it here, do we really need you , hell no so fuck off

if this seem harsh maybe you should talk to me in person because then i could yell at you, then you would see how violent man can be you fuckhead
go to hell before you piss off 48% of the worlds population
Cruel, but I like it.

Of course we need men. That's like asking "do we need oxygen." Without both genders, the species would die out.

Even mods don't bother with reading the articles these days, it'd seem...ah well. It really is interesting, btw.

Of course we need men. That's like asking "do we need oxygen." Without both genders, the species would die out.

so i'd like to take personal issue with this and the "men are half of society" argument.

"without both genders" my queer tookus. there are a boatload of genders out there. gender has to do with your societal role and physical presentation. sex is the one you're thinking of.
and "man" and "woman" are not sexes, nor are they biology, they're social roles. (this is an issue with the essentialized view of the article too)

"male" and "female" well, those are kinda biological, though there's still a substantial gray area (intersexed people - people who get born, and the doctors go "shit, i don't know how to classify this baby's genitals! i have to perform horrible, traumatic, inept surgery on them right now!")

so "there are lots more than two genders" coupled with "there are even more than 2 sexes" means this whole duality argument is bunk.
do we need sperm and egg producers to keep making more people in the long run? sure.
do those people have to be classified as "men" and "women"?
i don't see why they would.


and i don't know about you, but i need oxygen. if i don't get it for about 3 minutes, i drop dead.

i think it's safe to say that if we needed men like we need oxygen, it'd actually be pretty bad for "the species." because tons of people would be dropping dead every 3 minutes.

*I'm actually laughing*

not just typing LOL

that was funny Bandanna thank you.

i dunno but i sure as hell know i need women, woot!

dun dun dun dun dun dun myy sharona

ok you asked for it...this goes to the writer of the artical...some foul words will be used warning

People like you piss me off, what the hell is wrong with you? if you are a guy then you are the dumbest and more retarded person i have heard, if you a chick then fuck off. where you poeple have the right to say that me as a man is less is of man then 100 years ago, there was another group that thought that they had better genes, does the nazis ring any bells, i dont know bout you but i havent been sick in 10 years and before that i have not been sick more then i handful of times.
poeple get sick because they are too clean we kill all the grems around us so when our body's get some it doesnt know what the hell to do.

but to get back on track maybe you should have seen what would of happened if you had do we really need back people because its the same god dam fucking thing. i dont care if you didnt write this shit yourself, your just as fucking bad for pasting it here, do we really need you , hell no so fuck off

if this seem harsh maybe you should talk to me in person because then i could yell at you, then you would see how violent man can be you fuckhead
go to hell before you piss off 48% of the worlds population

AMEN.

Girls of the world only need one man. ME

THe rest of you can fuck yourselves.

*barfs*

Hi Phaerime, I haven't read the recent posts, I just got here. What's doing?

Hi Dobbs these folks are trying to cause trouble.

I don't care what you " gentlemen " (and I use that term extremely lightly ) think of me. The facts are that this is my thread and I am now
demanding that you will now leave this thread immediately and don't bother coming back. You are not welcome here and I will be actively seeking out Mods in order to ask them to explain things to you about flaming and using vulger language in these forums ... do I make myself clear ... Gentlemen!

this thread has been brought to you by the N.O.W action league, and the letter K and the number 2.



lol

This thread was meant to be an informative scientific investigative thread
which would be holding discussions about what we can do as a race to stop
the loss of men. I wasn't bashing men ... usually I Love men although I could
make an exception where some of you are concerned. The Mods have been
contacted by me and I will continue to contact them until they show up here.
Don't say you weren't warned.

This Article below is the topic of discussion in this thread, if you don't like it or can't show me a little respect as the originator then by all means feel free and invited to leave. To all others who are concerned about this possible problem for mankind and would like to discuss it ... you are welcome here.


Do we really need men?

The Y-chromosome - the ultimate symbol of machismo - is in a bad way. But, asks Bryan Sykes, apart from breeding, what real use is the male to the human race?

Thursday August 28, 2003
The Guardian

It is no secret that men are basically genetically modified women - the female being the fall-back developmental pathway for any fetus. The evolution of the two sexes could indeed be regarded as a long-running GM experiment.
Its legacy has been to endow men and women with different, and often conflicting, sets of genetic interests, and to ignite a powerful evolutionary struggle, which has accentuated the differences between the two sexes. In several respects, the experiment that gave us men is not going too well just now. Though it is a weary lament to lay most acts of violence and aggression, from the strictly local to the truly global, squarely at the feet of men, the association is strong, consistent and undeniable. Women very rarely commit violent crimes, become tyrants or start wars.
The experiment has created two irreconciliable genetic combatants. On the female side is mitochondrial DNA, which can only be passed down the maternal line. On the male side is the Y-chromosome, which is always passed from father to son. But while mitochondrial DNA is a model of slimmed-down efficiency, the Y-chromosome is a shambles, battered by mutation and going downhill fast, before it eventually disappears altogether. On this chromosome resides the single genetic switch (SRY) which, when flicked to "on", prevents human embryos from developing into baby girls and turns them into boys instead. Also spread out on this dying chromosome are the handful of other genes that men need to make fully operational sperm.
But why is this ultimate symbol of male machismo in such a mess? Originally the Y-chromosome was a perfectly respectable chromosome with a collection of genes doing all sorts of useful things - much like the X-chromosome today. But its fate was sealed when it took on the mantle of creating males. This probably happened in the early ancestors of mammals, perhaps 100m years ago when a mutation on the ancestor of the Y-chromosome suddenly, and quite by chance, enabled it to switch on the embryonic pathway to male development. Once this happened, the chromosome was doomed. It slowly lost contact with other chromosomes, thus missing out on the interaction that normally allows the shuffling of genes and so unable to properly heal the wounds inflicted by mutations. One by one, its thousands of useful genes were lost until now only 27 remain - and they are under constant threat.
Of all our chromosomes, it is the only one that is permanently locked into the germ cells of men, where the frenzy of cell division and error-prone DNA copying required to keep up the daily output of 150m sperm creates the ideal conditions for mutation. And it shows. Seven per cent of men are infertile or sub-fertile and in roughly a quarter of cases the problem is traceable to new Y-chromosome mutations, not present in their fathers, which disable one or other of the few remaining genes. This is an astonishigly high figure, and there is no reason to think things will improve in the future - quite the reverse in fact. One by one, Y-chromosomes will disappear, eliminated by the relentless onslaught of irreparable mutation, until only one is left. When that chromosome finally succumbs, men will become extinct.
Advertiser links
But when? I estimate that, at the current rate, male fertility caused by Y-chromosome decay will decline to 1% of its present level within 5,000 generations - roughly 125,000 years. Not exactly the day after tomorrow - but equally, not an unimaginably long time ahead. Unless something changes in the way we breed, women will vanish too and Homo sapiens will disappear in the next 1-200,000 years. But is extinction inevitable?
Plenty of species a lot older than our own are still going, so how is it that they are not vulnerable to extinction by the same process of Y-chromosome decay? They will all eventually face the same challenge and I suspect that many species have already gone under for this very reason. Some, however, have found a way round their death sentence.
One strategy is to recruit genes on other chromosomes to take over the job of male development. It is a race against time. Can a species get all the genes it needs off the Y-chromosome, or recreate them elsewhere, before the chromosome finally vanishes? Always the last gene to go will be SRY, the male master switch itself. We know it is capable of smuggling itself onto another chromosome - the evidence lies in the rare cases of males who have no Y-chromosome.
Lots of species may have tried variations on this theme to avoid extinction, but it seemed that none succeeded until, in 1995, researchers found a mammal that had managed to escape this fate. When they looked at the chromosomes of a small burrowing rodent called the mole vole, Ellobius lutescens, which lives in the foothills of the Caucasus mountains, they discovered that the male voles didn't have a Y-chromosome. Neither, it transpired, did they have a master SRY gene either. This inconspicuous little rodent has managed to activate a gene relay one or two stages down the line from SRY. And only just in time. The mole vole Y-chromosome has now completely disappeared. The vole is now safe from Y-chromosome-driven extinction, the only mammal species known to have succeeded in getting itself out of danger.
But one thing distinguishes Homo sapiens - we are at least capable of being aware of our impending demise. So do we need men? They are still required for breeding, if nothing else. But for how much longer?
The wide application of Intra-Cellular Sperm Injection (ICSI), the fertilisation of eggs by injecting sperm, could delay the extinction but it would still not prevent the progressive deterioration of the Y-chromosome. Other remedies have yet to be proved effective, but if men are to be retained they are at least worth considering. For instance, could we deliberately engineer the solution so
fortuitously arrived at by the mole vole? The human Y-chromosome could be left to decay, but men would be reprieved. We now know the 27 genes that are present and necessary on today's Y-chromosome to make a man in full working order. It would be easy to cut them out of the wreckage of the Y-chromosome and re-assemble them into a compact genetic package. From there, it would be relatively straightforward to insert the package into another chromosome, where it would probably work straight away.
The purpose of all this effort and ingenuity is to avoid the extinction of men, and with them our entire species. However, one radical solution to save the species is also the most genetically straightforward - to abandon men altogether. Though this sounds impossible, very little stands in its way from the genetic point of view. When sperm meets egg, it brings with it a set of nuclear chromosomes from the father, which, after fertilisation, mixes with a set of nuclear chromosomes from the mother. But there is nothing fundamental preventing the nuclear chromosomes coming not from a sperm but from another egg. We know from ICSI that sperm can be injected into eggs, and there is nothing to stop the nucleus from a second egg being injected instead.
But would it develop normally? At the moment the answer is no, but it is short-sighted to say that it is fundamentally impossible. Once the technical snags have been overcome - and I put the difficulties no higher than that - these embryos would grow into perfectly normal babies. The only difference from any other birth is that the sex is always predictable. The baby is always going to be a girl. The entire process has been accomplished without sperm, without Y-chromosomes and without men.
Importantly, the baby girls will not be clones. They are the same mixture of their parents' genes, shuffled just as thoroughly as any of today's children and they have two biological parents, not just one. Their only difference from any other child is that instead of a father and mother, these girls have two mothers. From a genetic point of view, they are completely normal, indistinguishable from any little girls around today and just as capable of having children with men (while they are still around).
Lesbian couples already enlist the help of a man to donate his set of chromosomes, packaged in a sperm, to fertilise the eggs of one of them. How much more attractive for these couples to have a baby to whom both, rather than just one, were parents. It is almost certain to happen and, unlike human cloning, I doubt there would be serious ethical objections. Men are now on notice.
According to Brian Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, the future of the human Y-chromosome (and therefore human males) may be less secure than previously thought.
The Y-chromosome is solely responsible for flipping the genetic "switch" that prevents a human embryo from developing into a girl (apparently the fall-back developmental pathway for embryos is female).
Because the Y-chromosome switches on the embryonic pathway to male development, it misses out on interaction that allows the shuffling of genes. This interaction normally repairs the damage caused by mutations, so is critical to the long term survival of the chromosome. Unable to properly repair the accumulating damage, the Y-chromosome is loosing useful genes at an alarming rate. Originally this chromosome had thousand of genes, but now it has dwindled to a mere 27.
Sykes estimates that about a quarter of today's male infertility is caused by this process of decay, and estimates that in about 125,000 years 99% of human males will be infertile.
Obviously, this does not bode well for Homo sapiens in general. One possible solution would be to recruit genes on other chromosomes to take over the job of male development. This is way beyond the reach of genetic engineering today, but who can say what this technology can do in the future.
Failing that, the article proposes the more genetically straightforward solution might be to give up on trying to produce men. ICSI (Intra-Cellular Sperm Injection) has already shown that you can fertilize and egg by injecting it with sperm. Fertilizing an egg with a nucleus from a second egg is just a matter of overcoming some technical hurdles. Of course, with no Y-chromosone in the mix, the resulting embryo would always be female.
The girls produced by this technology would be no different from naturally born girls today. They would still have mixture of their parents genes, and would continue the process of mixing the gene pool that is beneficial to the species.
You can read the full article with all it's mind bending details on The Guardian.

this thread has been brought to you by the N.O.W action league, and the letter K and the number 2.



lol

Make a legitimate contribution or you may leave ... your choice

Sorry about that Dobbs, how have you been.

Come now guys is her thread really so theatening to your manhood or are
you just looking for trouble? From what I have read of phaerimes posts she
is only informing people and asking for ideas to help.

Yeah no kidding … if evolution holds true the evolution of such a gender would mean that it has some strengths or purpose for being … making humanity more adapted for its environment then ever before. Why would you hate such a strengthening of the species?

Sorry, not to nitpick but having an organism become more evolved does not mean that it will be stronger. Take the Panda for example. They are one of the most evolved creatures on the planet, as well as their own worst enemy. It is amazing that they are still alive. Besides what environment are we talking about. Humanity would not change all that much. Only a bunch of women who look exactly the same, as there would be less genetic diversity. Not to say you are wrong so as to avoid getting flamed, but im just adding my two cents. Now once again Im sorry I posted. Im going to go cry myself to sleep now... :(

Sorry, not to nitpick but having an organism become more evolved does not mean that it will be stronger. Take the Panda for example. They are one of the most evolved creatures on the planet, as well as their own worst enemy. It is amazing that they are still alive. Besides what environment are we talking about. Humanity would not change all that much. Only a bunch of women who look exactly the same, as there would be less genetic diversity. Not to say you are wrong so as to avoid getting flamed, but im just adding my two cents. Now once again Im sorry I posted. Im going to go cry myself to sleep now... :(

I wouldn't flame you if you did say I was wrong, thats part of having a discussion. But I can't Guarantee you that someone else wouldn't. I've just
been trying to keep this thread about the article and some folks had differant ideas. So don't be sorry you posted I'm not.

Sorry, not to nitpick but having an organism become more evolved does not mean that it will be stronger. Take the Panda for example. They are one of the most evolved creatures on the planet, as well as their own worst enemy. It is amazing that they are still alive. Besides what environment are we talking about. Humanity would not change all that much. Only a bunch of women who look exactly the same, as there would be less genetic diversity. Not to say you are wrong so as to avoid getting flamed, but im just adding my two cents. Now once again Im sorry I posted. Im going to go cry myself to sleep now... :(

Yep an organism can evolve downwards as well. look at the Eloi in _The Time Machine_. males and females look the same because their environment doesn't require any genetic diversity but as a whole the race is weaker. if there were only women (as in _The Female Man_) then there would still be genetic diversity if they had to fulfull different functions - i.e. some would be warriors like the men used to be and some would bear children. so natural selection would still favour genetic diversity. it depends on the environment around us, not which gender we're left with.

Yep an organism can evolve downwards as well. look at the Eloi in _The Time Machine_. males and females look the same because their environment doesn't require any genetic diversity but as a whole the race is weaker. if there were only women (as in _The Female Man_) then there would still be genetic diversity if they had to fulfull different functions - i.e. some would be warriors like the men used to be and some would bear children. so natural selection would still favour genetic diversity. it depends on the environment around us, not which gender we're left with.

I'm hardly one to cirticize, but...'The Time Machine'? That's a little dog-eared, isn't it?

I think the point is that we become increasingly socialized, there's simply less and less of a need for 'warrior' types - barring an invasion from beyond the planet - but I'd like to think that any starfaring species would similarly have got it's own act together before coming all the way out to see us on Earth...

I think our existence is necessary at least for reproductive reasons.
Well: I would not question the necessity of the existence of woman though.
I feel discriminated now, hehehe.

As I have said before .... this thread is only a discussion about a potential
future problem. Personally I love men, so please don't take this thread the
wrong way. I am concerned for the safety and continued existence of not
only men, but of mankind in general. That is the point of this thread not all
this other stuff that has caused arguements.

Men and women being both necessary to the survival of the species means we need 'em both. Amongst other things we also have the yin-and-yang argument about how men and women balance each other out and yadda yadda yadda. I have a hat.

To those of you who knowingly hijacked my thread .... and you know who you are so I don't need to mention names .... you should be ashamed of yourselves. Certainly if you were children of mine, you wouldn't be comfortable
sitting down for quite a while.

To those of you who knowingly hijacked my thread .... and you know who you are so I don't need to mention names .... you should be ashamed of yourselves. Certainly if you were children of mine, you wouldn't be comfortable
sitting down for quite a while.
but they aren't, are they?

To all the rest of you I want to say I'm really sorry a few people felt they
had to ruin what I at least considered a good thing. Hope to see you in future threads .... Phaerime.

but they aren't, are they?


Luckly for them no .... however if you are a Mod, you have that same
ability to correct wrongs here in these forums. I would think that stopping people like them from hijacking other peoples threads would be a normal part of a mods job .... wouldn't it?

Luckly for them no .... however if you are a Mod, you have that same
ability to correct wrongs here in these forums. I would think that stopping people like them from hijacking other peoples threads would be a normal part of a mods job .... wouldn't it?
the typical mod reaction is to just pillage and burn a thread that has been hijacked by either locking or deleting it.

where would racing be, mechanics, warehosue workers, beer? wars would be fought in pink tanks, very odd thought.... s can accomplish alot, but us guys are still nessary in daily life.. to hunt, defend, do most of the work around the village, look at third world countries, still the same it has been for many years.. we're still good for other things..

But the issue here is wether or not we want to try to do something about stopping the decay of the Y-chromosome

I would have thought that this would be a very important issue the males of the world. Like shouldn't the male scientist of the world be trying to fix
the problem their selves before it's to late?

I've seen reports on this, its thousands of years away. I'm sure human development will work something out by then in a natural way. Last thing we need is more "improvements" before scientists know the consequences of their actions.

In Thalestris we know that men are necessary. They are the fathers of our children, the uncles we can adore, and the sons we can raise to be good homekeepers for their busy wives. We also know that nature, being feminine in character, will solve any problems "male scientists" may be worried about if they just like things flow naturally.

the typical mod reaction is to just pillage and burn a thread that has been hijacked by either locking or deleting it.

I understand that .... but that doesn't motivate the hijackers to change
there ways. In fact, that practice could fuel the problem, in that the
hijackers might get a feeling of power from causing other peoples threads to
be locked or deleted by the Mods, and a feeling of power and control over
the Mods themselves. So my suggestion is to punish the hijackers, not the
threads author.

where would racing be, mechanics, warehosue workers, beer? wars would be fought in pink tanks, very odd thought.... s can accomplish alot, but us guys are still nessary in daily life.. to hunt, defend, do most of the work around the village, look at third world countries, still the same it has been for many years.. we're still good for other things..

I agree entirely hun .... guys are good for a great many things .... which
is why I'm interested in keeping you all around.

I've seen reports on this, its thousands of years away. I'm sure human development will work something out by then in a natural way. Last thing we need is more "improvements" before scientists know the consequences of their actions.

In Thalestris we know that men are necessary. They are the fathers of our children, the uncles we can adore, and the sons we can raise to be good homekeepers for their busy wives. We also know that nature, being feminine in character, will solve any problems "male scientists" may be worried about if they just like things flow naturally.


The Bible teachs that if we do all that we can do, then God will take care
of the parts of the problem we can't handle. That is what I am trying to
do with this thread, get us started doing what we are able to do. After all
why wait to the last moment?