June 10, 2012

"Imagine then a world without men... Where women will have babies with other women to produce more women."

"These concepts may seem outrageous now, but they may not seem as strange in the future. 'This is because society’s changing, law is changing and families are changing. There was a time when lesbians weren’t allowed to use sperm banks. Now, they are. Our kids and their kids might not look at things the same way as we do. In fact, they might look back and laugh at us,' says [Aarathi Prasad, UK-based geneticist and author of Like A Virgin: The Science Of A Sexless Future]."

Link.

127 comments:

Baronger said...

Imagine a world without women? Where, men have babies grown in uterine replicators.

campy said...

I'm laughing at you now, Aarathi.

AllieOop said...

Whatever the mechanism of fertilization, there still needs to be one sperm, one egg. Seems a bit sad to skip the sex part.

bagoh20 said...

That entire civilization would be brought to it's knees by the first flat tire, and tiny spiders would rule over humanity.

Tom Spaulding said...

I'm going to invest heavily in aquarium manufacturers... and Schwin.

n.n said...

If men will be milked for their sperm, and women will be used as incubators and feeders, then who or what will be left to rule the Earth?

Ann Althouse said...

"Whatever the mechanism of fertilization, there still needs to be one sperm, one egg."

That's not what the article says.

Franklin said...

@Baronger. Exactly...these people call others small-minded but can't seem to grasp all the aspects of technological advancement..

bagoh20 said...

Just one sperm is all they wanted? No wonder they hate us - we're always showing off.

AllieOop said...

I admit I didn't read the article, reading it now.

Maguro said...

Yeah, who wouldn't want to emulate the survival strategy of isolated Komodo Dragon populations? Sounds like a real winner.

Ipso Fatso said...

Aarathi Prasad

Something tells me this person has tenure.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

OK, read the article.

Whoa that is a scary future, and as I said very sad, if it were to be used to make males obsolete. But I doubt that it would happen, males and females will continue to be attracted to one another physically, pheromones will perfume the air and all will continue to be right with the world of sexual attraction and making babies the old fashioned way.

Jana said...

This doesn't seem quite plausible to me. There is a shortage of girls in the world today, due to the prevalence of sex-selective abortion. The problem is already growing in Europe, and starting to rear its head here.

The bias toward male babies is strong in many cultures, and those cultures currently find ways to exploit scientific advancement in pursuit of the goal of more male babies.

It would take a lot of time to change those (not good) cultural leanings.

I didn't read the article super closely, but it didn't address the fact that many women out there are not, in fact, lesbians. Conceiving a baby the old fashioned way is still the easiest and cheapest way to make a baby. I imagine the utility and ease of that method will always win out in the end. But what do I know?

bagoh20 said...

This will kill sitcoms.

wyo sis said...

Apply occams razor.

William said...

I didn't read the article, but ditto Jana. The facts are that it is the females who are being aborted. Eventually, they will get to the left-handed and the red haired, but right now it's the females not the males who are being culled from the herd....Beyond this, it seems to me that this whole idea of having reproduction without sex is like growing marijuana without the buzz producing chemicals. It can be done, but I don't see a really big market there.

Tom Spaulding said...

I won't be disenfranchised with this attempt at a Voter I.U.D. law!

Solidarity!

Hagar said...

OTOH, if we want a peaceful world, do away with the women!

rcommal said...

Imagine then a world without men..."

I don't wanna. Love 'em.

Ron said...

The surest way to eliminate gender discrimination is to eliminate one gender! Heinrich Himmler, call your attorney!

D.D. Driver said...

This is the plot line of one of my favorite recent comic book series, Y:The Last Man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y:_The_Last_Man

Michael K said...

Anybody who watched or read "Jurassic Park" knows that this will probably go wrong if tried. That was the premise of the story and the sexless reproduction lost control. The cultural issues are too powerful anyway. This is a lesbian wet dream.

edutcher said...

I remember TV episodes back in the 50s envisioning such a future.

The Lefties were hard at it even then.

bagoh20 said...

After all the work that has been put into having sex without reproducing, we are gonna go the other way now? What does Intrade say about this?

Jay said...

War on gay males!!!

Synova said...

Gawd... I wrote this sci-fi story 20 years ago.

Several feminist science fiction authors wrote it before that (and sold it, too). I think that Suzy Charnas had one.

Bujold wrote it with men instead of women 10 years ago.

DADvocate said...

Imagine then a world without men. Only women as Presidents and Prime Ministers, judges and doctors, automobile mechanics and scientists.

The goal of feminism fueled by the usual feminist ego centrism. all the matters is me/us. Everything for me/us. The same attitude displayed by the woman n the NTY essay the other day.

Synova said...

"Whatever the mechanism of fertilization, there still needs to be one sperm, one egg."

"That's not what the article says."

Without looking at the article I can think of two proposed ways, possibly three, that don't take sperm.

We can't quite do them now, though. I think even cloning takes an initial *fertilized* egg. But I could be wrong about that.

Synova said...

Poul Anderson, too, I think.

Paul said...

These people ever hear of INTERBREEDING? And the repercussions?

By getting rid of 1/2 of the equation they risk that very thing.

The very reason our society produces so varied a form of human life is the random mix. These lesbos just don't see that their homosexual ideas are not found in nature.

But if they want this kind of thing, then they can just move off to some island and have at it. But don't be shocked if in 10 generations it becomes a zoo fit for a carnival show.

YoungHegelian said...

You just gotta love the scientific hubris displayed in the article:

Today, we can laugh at their folly, but it’s quite possible that future generations will look back in wonder at our ignorance of asexual reproduction.

Or, just maybe, we'll look back and laugh at the folly of man who thought with the limited tools available to him he could mimic incredibly complex biological processes that Nature developed over hundreds of millions of years.

We have no complete understanding what happens when an egg is fertilized & right after (e.g. they discovered a few years ago that the egg can actually repair damaged genetic material in the sperm).

How long does a mouse live compared to a human being? There will be much more time for genetic issues to show up in a human being, just like they found problems with cloned sheep that weren't visible in mice.

I pity the poor human beings that end up being born as the test subjects for this abuse of God's creation.

ndspinelli said...

Men still rule the world and own pretty much everything in it. The odds of this happening are quite slim.

bagoh20 said...

Does anybody really want to live in the future? They are gonna need better advertizing if they want anyone to show up.

Joe said...

Image then a world with pinheaded intellectuals...

Richard said...

Frame Herbert wrote the book “The White Plague” in 1982 in which a plague started by a microbiologist kills only females.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Plague

rcommal said...

e.g. they discovered a few years ago that the egg can actually repair damaged genetic material in the sperm).

Wow! Really? I never saw that. How cool and fascinating is that!!!

pst314 said...

"Several feminist science fiction authors wrote it before that (and sold it, too). I think that Suzy Charnas had one."

Yes, she was one of those kind, tolerant, loving feminists who longed for gender genocide. I think Joanna Russ was another--a lesbian feminist writer who wrote stories about the wonderful, socialist, lesbian future that could be, if only all those evil men were exterminated (but exterminated in the most kindly way, of course.)

the wolf said...

In fact, they might look back and laugh at us

Oh, I'm certain they will. But not for the reasons you think.

cubanbob said...

There is a lot of hubris in the article but it isn't science.
An egg has 24 chromosomes. The sperm has 24 chromosomes. But what isn't said in the article is that even if you swapped the males chromosomes with another females chromosomes is that wouldn't work. Which genes get turned on and which genes stay turned of arises from the mix of the male and female. Even though both parents contribute the same genes (we mirrors from each parent) it's which copy that gets turned on or stays silent that determines whether the fetus ever develops and whether or not the child has genetic defects.

The article is basically a militant lesbian fantasy.

jimbino said...

There would be a need for women if the world needed more breeding, but it doesn't.

It needs better plumbing, transportation, energy exploration--things that men do.

Synova said...

"Yes, she was one of those kind, tolerant, loving feminists who longed for gender genocide."

I won't allow you to say bad things about Suzy, since she's someone I know. Also, as much as we're not of the same opinions, we seem to be somewhat of the same mind, since I say things and she understands what I *mean*. Which is unusual and earns my good favor.

Synova said...

Seriously, I suggested that the creative writing process was like death, in that it eliminated every other potentiality to favor what is.

And she didn't look at me like I had two heads.

MadisonMan said...

You are not Morg. You are not Eymorg.

@cubanbob, exactly what species are you talking about?

Alex said...

If asexual reproduction becomes possible, why not make it genderless? It will be the victory of androgyny!

YoungHegelian said...

@rcommal,

e.g. they discovered a few years ago that the egg can actually repair damaged genetic material in the sperm).

Wow! Really? I never saw that. How cool and fascinating is that!!!


Here's a link

It's not where I read about it, which is now lost in the fog of memory, but it's a start!

Alex said...

Another message implicit in this article is that all lesbians hate men and want to exterminate them. Wow, just wow. Amazing how when the left starts feeling it's power, it gets into Nazi mode.

rhhardin said...

It would be a lot easier on the men.

Aridog said...

@ Paul ... you raise a serious issue vis a vis reduction of genetic diversity. From what I've read: Parthenogenesis carries the risk of increased mutation inherent in any system where genetic diversity is decreased.

Even with out parthenogenetic reproduction, simply in-breeding or close in line breeding (which reduces the genetic diversity in offspring) can induce mutations in offspring never seen previously.

A classic example mutation is Equine Hyperkalemic Periodic Paralysis (EHYPP) in horses, a debilitating, potentially lethal syndrome. It is a mutation directly descended from one ancestor, the quarter horse stallion "Impressive." offspring from "Impressive" were repeatedly in-bred or close-in line-bred (closer than outside 3 generations ... closer than 5 generations in my personal opinion).

While I was directly involved with a few "Impressive" line horses, I never bought one, thankfully. Although he produced around 30 world champion offspring, in the end the losses were tremendous as the origin of EHYPP was traced back. The consequence for human reproduction could be far worse.

Without starting up a religious debate (please)on the subject ... I'd say it is a safe presumption that messing with mother nature can be disastrous.

AllieOop said...

Cubanbob never heard of female sperm.

MisterBuddwing said...

Paging Valerie Solanas (who believed the only salvation was a world made up entirely of lesbians - no men, no straight women).

David R. Graham said...

"Aarathi Prasad." Fire as Food. Light as Meal. Beauty as Holy Sustenance. Does she hate her name or like it? Sounds like career-creating/funding-begging. The topic is immaterial, and objectively, trivial.

JimM47 said...

Okay. I buy that some day it will be technologically feasible for two women to have children who are genetically theirs at a reasonable cost. And I buy that those children would necessarily be female.

But it isn't clear that all lesbians wishing to reproduce would do so this way. Many will have cheaper options for having children that are still closely related to both parents, which would produce males.

And it isn't clear why others would limit themselves to only having female children. Lesbian couples are a small fraction of reproducing couples, so it should only skew the results.

The missing piece needs to be that genetic disposition towards lesbianism also increases when lesbians have children with these technologies. But would that be the case? Practically speaking, lots of lesbians seem to have been having lots of children for all of recorded history, only with men, and often living unhappy lives to do so. So it isn't clear that this has more effect on numbers of woman than .5 times the percent of couples who are lesbian couples.

pm317 said...

The comments here show an inner dislike for lesbians and a hatred for feminists. Why not comment about the science and what may be?

Yesterday, we were talking about how human as a mammalian species was not that old. And we were talking about what the next evolution will be. Where do we go from here? What else do we become?

YoungHegelian said...

For all those arrogant scientists who like to go mucking in cellular/genetic processes, I have one request:

Come up with a working artificial liver or kidney (and, no, a dialysis machine doesn't come close to doing what a kidney does), and then I'll believe you've got the moxie to go further.

When you look at the complexity of what a liver or kidney can do, the mind boggles. We are so far away from modeling those cellular processes.

madAsHell said...

What's going to happen when "Some assembly required" is written on the box?

sydney said...

Aridog,

There's a hyperkalemic periodic paralysis (and a hypokalemic one, too) in people as well. Also genetic.

Dan K. Wynn said...

Feminists/lesbians pining for a world without men. Hilarious. What's the most noteworthy thing a woman has done to advance civilization? What has a woman invented? Enjoy your world of uncreative, risk averse, catty dullards.

It's also interesting that they're now openly calling for the extermination of men. I guess she doesn't realize that she can say the things she does only because men permit it. The moment men get sick enough of it to decide to put an end to it, it will end.

sydney said...

There was an episode in the original series of Star Trek with a similar theme. Although, the women of the planet did not learn to reproduce without men. They just made the men live on top the of the planet in primitive conditions while the women lived underground in luxury. They would kidnap and enslave a few good men to provide for their reproductive needs. If I remember correctly, the men on the surface were very afraid of the women. "They bring pain and pleasure!"

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcommal said...

Seriously, I suggested that the creative writing process was like death, in that it eliminated every other potentiality to favor what is.

And she didn't look at me like I had two heads.


Synova: Love that!

YoungHegelian: Thanks for the link! Fascinating topic. Man, stuff like that puts me in awe in an almost humbling way. There's so much complexity in nature that we (or at least I) can't even begin to grasp. It's why I think we need to approach certain kinds of finagling with such a sense of reverence, caution and, yes, humility.

YoungHegelian said...

@sydney,

That was the infamous "Spock's Brain" episode, which was turned in by the writer(s) as a joke, but Roddenberry went with it anyway.

Sadly, there were episodes of ST that were not jokes that were worse.

We use the line "Brain, brain, brain, and brain! What is brain?!" line chez Younghegelian all the time.

Synova said...

"What's the most noteworthy thing a woman has done to advance civilization? What has a woman invented?"

I'm pretty sure Madame Curie did something or other.

bagoh20 said...

I have a lot of lesbians as friends, (just my luck), and I find that in general they seem to like men better than women. At least it comes off that way. They have a pretty vocal and mean dislike for a lot of women, and only rarely describe any in highly positive ways beyond the physical.

Conversely, they often describe men in the nicest, most admiring ways. It may be partly due to a competitiveness between women that they are free of with men. Or maybe women just suck. I mean who am I to argue - I don't understand them, and certainly not better than a lesbian.

Aridog said...

@Sydney .. yes, I'm aware of HYPP in humans, but I stuck to horses because that is where my experience lies.

I should clarify my comment a bit by adding a salient fact that I omitted vis a vis the quarter horse "Impressive." That is that his dam, "Glamor Bars" was both in-bred and line bred on his sire, the Thoroughbred "Three Bars" ... effectively giving 5+ generations of reduced genetic diversity in "Impressive." That was then compounded further as I commented.

"Impressives" most notable precedent, the redundant TB "Three Bars" did not pass EHYPP down through any of his other lineages (IIRC) ...e.g., it began with the mutation in "Impressive."

As I said, messing with Mother Nature can be scary.

edutcher said...

Jay said...

War on gay males!!!

Poor Hatman! He thought he was winning.

AllieOop said...

Cubanbob never heard of female sperm.

Oop didn't read the part that says it's a modified egg.

Unless he/she/it means what squirts out when the man makes the lady REALLY happy.

Dante said...

I'm going to invest in dildo and strap on manufacturers.

rcommal said...

Hey, I just learned that a woman invented the circular saw! And also that another invented the compiler (English into code) as well as COBOL. Not earthshaking stuff, perhaps, but pretty darn handy. : )

AllieOop said...

Edutcher, what do you suppose Madison Man meant by his comment at 12:27 PM? I'm not certain he was thinking along the same lines as I, but I suspect he was.

Dan K. Wynn said...

"I'm pretty sure Madame Curie did something or other."

You're trying to sound flippant but I think that's genuinely the best summation of her accomplishments that you can give off the top of your head. "Something or other."

It's a mediocre and predictable point anyway. Like the lesbian in the original article who is waiting around for male scientists to develop the technology necessary to eliminate men, Curie was utterly dependent on the work of men for her own work. She was a genius and a great scientist who built on the work of men and had men improve on her work.

But the fact is that best and most important thing that anyone, man or woman, can do is give birth to the next generation. As it happens, only women can do that. It is a pity that women have allowed feminism to infect their brains to the degree that they're no longer able to see that fact, that they now believe that birthing and rearing children is beneath them.

Fen said...

...used to make males obsolete. But I doubt that it would happen, males and females will continue to be attracted to one another physically...

Not so fast. Most of my 20-something female friends are always lamenting that there are so few *real* men and so many metrosexual boys.

The average age of "full-time" (40+ hrs a week) male gamers is 28yrs old.

Fen said...

"What's the most noteworthy thing a woman has done to advance civilization?"

Empress Theodora of the Byzantine Empire.

I could read you a book and still not cover half of what she did.

Freeman Hunt said...

A world without men?

Luckily, I'd be dead by then.

cubanbob said...

AllieOop said...
Cubanbob never heard of female sperm.

6/10/12 12:37 PM

Please enlighten us.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

The idea is even older than that. "The Last Man" by Wallace West was first published in "Amazing" in February of 1929, collected in "The Pocket Book of Science Fiction" in 1943. It was the story of the last man, kept in a zoo-like observation house, and an atavistic woman who helped him escape.

Synova said...

Right, Dan. Normally I'd be the first to insist that the hormone storm associated with pregnancy turns a woman's brain to mush, but you're not being respectful of women by pretending to insist that our wombs have the most important job in the universe and that should make us all happy.

Why is it not respectful? Because you're pretending on the one hand to respect women's contributions, and on the other hand saying that women can't do the science that men do, on account of they're not men.

The thing of it is, a world of only women is going to suffer more from a lack of bovine brute strength than from a lack of brains. After all, the number of brains needed to push a truly creative scientific discovery are few. You don't need an army of Einsteins or Madame Curies, you need one of them. What you need an army of, is an army. And there, too, women won't lack the brains or the pure bloody mindedness, they'll lack the brawn.

AllieOop said...

Cubanbob, as Madison Man said, what species were you talking about ?

Fen said...

It's also interesting that they're now openly calling for the extermination of men. I guess she doesn't realize that she can say the things she does only because men permit it.

But I agree with you. If women were actually "equal", men would not have been able to dominate them since the beginning of time.

Sorry, but there it is, sans the PCBS.

Do you really think that humans have not experimented with matriarchal civs in the past? Hello, its all been done before, and we learned enough from those instances to not repeat that mistake again.

So no need to get worked up or offended by some Lesbian anti-male Utopia. It won't last one generation.

Freeman Hunt said...

Transexuals will be awfully popular.

Synova said...

"But I agree with you. If women were actually "equal", men would not have been able to dominate them since the beginning of time."

Women are smaller and weaker and spend the better part of the years where humans have attained their full potency and before decline, in a biologically induced semi-handicapped state.

From a science-fictionish standpoint a women-only society would almost certainly become stratified between breeders and non-breeders, and lip-service would be paid to the breeders about how important they are while those women who didn't carry children felt intellectually superior.

Probably will happen anyway, society dividing up in "classes" of non-breeders, surrogates, and breeders, since I can't see the self-important giving up on the Mathusian nonsense any time soon.

Astro said...

In 1973 Heinlein wrote 'Time Enough for Love' (the notebooks of Lazarus Long) where he detailed the process of cloning to produce humans, including two daughters cloned from Lazarus which did not require sperm.

The 1968 Canned Heat album included the blues-y suite 'Parthenogenesis'.

chickelit said...

Economic pipe dream. The fanciful author offers no cheap and inexpensive way to conceive a child--everything involves just the possible in the laboratory setting. Far be it from me to dash the hopes of lesbian couples both of whom who want their own genetic offspring devoid of Y chromosome, but I still see no viable plan to replace the cheap and reliable mechanism sexual reproduction. But let them try and rule the world--we'll rise up and beat them into submission.

Bob Ellison said...

Imagine a world.without everyone I dislike.

Scott M said...

In an all-female society, the more masculine women would run everything, thus completing a massive cosmic punchline as a small, subversive group of femme radicals successfully engineer a being out of legend they call a ma'an who they use to throw off the yoke of the oppressive diesel dykes.

Besides...in an all woman society there would still be dildos and strap-ons...non-virgins aplenty. Was the rest of her work as poorly thought out as her title?

Joan said...

Joanna Russ' When It Changes was the first treatment of this idea I was exposed to. It's a good story, and her afterword, at the link, is excellent as well.

Forty years ago, Russ' observations about gender roles and expectations were dead on. A lot has changed in the US and much of the west, though, although in the rest of the world, it hasn't. Perhaps that explains why Dr. Prasad and the Indian reporter can babble on like this about a world without men as if it would be a good thing.

Fen said...

Well, I'm certain Persia would celebrate a world without Men of the West.

How does Islam treat Lesbianism? Stoning and then set ablaze, or thown in a ditch under a toppling wall?

Fen said...

Oh here it is:

The imams are agreed that there is no hadd punishment for lesbianism because it is not zina (unlawful sexual intercourse), rather it is to be punished with a ta’zeer punishment

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/21058


The third category of punishment is known as ta'zeer (discretionary punishment) and it is "a sentence or punishment whose measure is not fixed by the Shari'ah"42 neither as to the offence nor the penalty. It helps to meet varying circumstances (e.g. if a definitional element is short in a haad offence) and the punishment that was generally inflicted in the past was whipping, though other alternatives such as a warning, fines and imprisonment could be given, but the quantum of punishment for ta'zeer is generally much below that of haad (e.g. ten lashes).

http://www.jannah.org/morearticles/4.html

So, whippings fines and imprisonment. Enjoy!

Fr Martin Fox said...

Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 1968; restated Catholic Church's perennial teaching regarding sex having an intrinsic orientation toward procreation, and thus it is gravely immoral to exclude it.

In restating this teaching, Pope Paul VI made the point this way: marital acts are both unifying and procreative, and separating these aspects is both gravely immoral and gravely unwise.

He predicted the embrace of contraception would lead to a general lowering of morality, the demeaning of women, and the involvement of the state in what otherwise is a private sphere.

Unless you want to fault him for not foreseeing this, I'd say he's looking mighty prophetic.

A hundred years ago, they won't remember him for his role at Vatican II; they'll remember him for Humanae Vitae--and they'll wish folks had listened.

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

It's not often that a thread sums up the best responses in the first four comments, but this one does. I went to comment and it was all already there.

To recap:

(1) Baronger: Imagine a world without women? Where, men have babies grown in uterine replicators. Yup. The author overlooks her own premise. A future society that doesn't need men to make babies won't need women to carry them to term.

(3) AllieOop: Seems a bit sad to skip the sex part. Here's the key quote from the article So, if humans had the option of reproducing without sex, would we do it that way?. Given that we've proved the inverse of this statement, I think the question begs itself. For most people the fertilization part isn't forbidding. It's the consequences of the fertilization part.

(4) bagoh20: That entire civilization would be brought to it's knees by the first flat tire, and tiny spiders would rule over humanity. My wife would be empress of it all, until the plumbing backed up.

(2) campy: I'm laughing at you now, Aarathi. Yup.

I'll offer one more reaction -- not about this poorly projected dystopia, but about the Ms. Prasad's rhetoric.

Pushed to explain herself, Ms. Prasad devolves to the language of pathology:

People say it’s not natural. But if you have heart disease and you need a pacemaker, you wouldn’t say ‘no, that’s not natural’. And if your baby’s born prematurely, it should die. But you put it in an incubator, it lives, and nobody’s going to say that’s a bad thing.

So is fertilization unnatural or a disease? The fact that the futurist has to use the language of disorder to make her argument tells you where it's lacking.

pst314 said...

"I won't allow you to say bad things about Suzy"

Well, I met her some years ago, and have had the misfortune to listen to her speak. That was an "interesting" experience: The better part of a full hour of snide comments on how stupid and vile and contemptible men are.

Gene said...

Even women who don't like men still need someone to install tile bathrooms and open peanut butter jars.

Chip Ahoy said...

Futurama totally nailed this.

cubanbob said...

AllieOop said...
Cubanbob, as Madison Man said, what species were you talking about ?

6/10/12 1:42 PM

I know its a stretch for the both of you but the species is human. You can look it up.

Incidentally among humans, the female is the more genetically stable of the sexes. Nature does its experimentation the males. That is why males have a larger tendency for genetic abnormalities and a greater range of IQ both on the low end and on the high end. So until such time there is a far greater and deeper understanding of genetics parthenogenisis in humans is pretty much a pipe dream.

MadisonMan said...

There was an episode in the original series of Star Trek with a similar theme.

Yes. That is the origin of my morg/eymorg quote.

Humans have 23 chromosomes. (Well, normal humans). That was all I was saying, AllieOop.

Paco Wové said...

cubanbob: I think their point was that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, thus ovum and sperm have 23 chromosomes (22 autosomes + 1 sex chromosome).

Paco Wové said...

and Madison Man gets to be pedantic first because of a conflicting edit. Goddamned Blogger.

Aridog said...

@ Henry ... While I agree with you "dystopia", even the tongue in cheek (I think) parts, I think you missed an important comment: that of @Paul at 12:01 regarding arbitrarily removing 50% of a gene pool. That is the natural tendency for almost "scientifically" managed breeding programs, to favor line-breeding schemes, including in-breeding, usually defined as inside 3 generations.

My follow on comment(s)about the effects of human manipulation of breeding merely gave an example of sorts. One I can relate to from personal first hand experience.

Aridog said...

@cubanbob said: So until such time there is a far greater and deeper understanding of genetics parthenogenisis in humans is pretty much a pipe dream.

And unquestionably a dangerous one if tried. While men may be nature's laboratory, women carry the results forward in selection, natural or otherwise. Adverse results don't appear in necessarily predictable patterns ... they can skip generations, appear in male or female offspring, but they always come to fore eventually. Once fixed in a line, they stay extant.

chuckR said...

You people disappoint me. I came here to be amused and was encouraged by bagoh20's first comment, but things mostly went downhill from there. I'll have to wait for AOSHQ to link this.

whoresoftheinternet said...

lol. A world without men? Yeah, because broads are soooooo good at science and leadership, they'll run it themselves.

A world run by women would implode within 5 minutes as catfights broke out everywhere and nothing ever got fixed.

Aridog said...

You people disappoint me.

Yeah, "you people" are usually disappointing....just like "those people", "them", and "they."

For my measly part, I apologize deeply. I may weep for a hour.

Mundane68 said...

@ cubanbob,

I think I will take my genetic counseling from someone who doesn't snark and get the haploid number of humans as 24 as proof of his understanding of the subject.

Paul said...

Aridog,

Thank you for understanding what I said and expounding it.

So many people look only at the 'popular' aspects of arguments and not the grim facts.

And this problem is not something that would just affect a lesbian idea or male version of it.

China's 'one child' policy and the killing off of female babies (over there female babies are 'undesirable') is producing disastrous effects in China today. Not only the corruption of the gene pool but in the MILLIONS of excess men with no chance to find a mate.

Expect in years to come you will see massive problems in China with totally unforeseen results.

So take heed lesbians and haters of men. What you propose will come back to haunt you.

paul a'barge said...

Guess the gender:

click to view the mutt who wrote this nonsense

Christopher said...

Chip Ahoy,

But their basketball team had good fundamentals.

On a side note I've always labored under the belief that any species reliant upon technology to actually breed is effectively doomed.

chuckR said...

aridog - you people are too thin-skinned.

This article is a piece of fluff.

Christopher said...

Maybe the author addressed it in the report and I missed it but for this theory to work wouldn't the lesbian couples have to have children at or above the rate of the general population?

That doesn't seem that likely.

Aridog said...

aridog - "you people" [again] are too thin-skinned.

Yassuh ... we be gettin' to da back o'da bus raht now.

Seeing Red said...

Didn't "The Twilight Zone" do an eppy on this? I seem to remember one. It was disgusting then. I came into it late, I think she ended up in a breeding body in the future. Or she was hypnotized and that was the story, can't remember.

David said...

What? A world with no men to blame? Women will never let it happen.

ed said...

The day they make a viable female sex robot is the last day men give a shit about whatever fucking hell-broth is fermenting in women's minds.

Seriously. Who comes up with this crap?

sleepless nights said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ampersand said...

Imagine a future world where Amazon women learn that a turkeybaster is no defense against hordes of horny Chinamen.

Mark said...

A planet of hot babe-on-babe action?

*Ahem*

But seriously, every (genetically correct) fertilized egg starts out as a single cell with an X chromosome from the mother and either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome from the not-mother. (The mother also supplies the mitochondrial DNA. The not-mother does not.)

If technology were developed to take a viable X chromosome from another human and bypass the whole "into the breach!" biology of millions of sperm swarming the egg and just get it where it needs to be when it needs to be there and with the correct environmental conditions, then yes, there's no need for sperm, per se.

Perfectly reasonable. And mad as a cat with a bad mercury-laced catnip habit.

Mark said...

The day they make a viable female sex robot is the last day men give a shit about whatever fucking hell-broth is fermenting in women's minds.

I'm saving up for the Lucy Liu model.

Freeman Hunt said...

I would have had to fix the ballast on the light in the kitchen, so I guess the kitchen would be dark.

sleepless nights said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Corky Boyd said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Corky Boyd said...

There will always be women who take pleasure in dreaming of a world without the need for men. My guess is most of them don't sleep with men in the first place.

I think no matter what science dreams up, for most of us there is no better way to make babies than the old fashioned way.

Laura said...

Awesome! No more IVF adultery!

beast said...

Sex and The High Command (1970) by John Boyd. Male dystopia,Lesbian Utopia.

SGT Ted said...

That entire civilization would be brought to it's knees by the first flat tire, and tiny spiders would rule over humanity.

It'll also be a world without mayonnaise and pickles.

I wouldn't want to live in it.

SGT Ted said...

Whos going to make the child support payments, if theres no men?

Bryan C said...

"If men will be milked for their sperm, and women will be used as incubators and feeders, then who or what will be left to rule the Earth?"

The intergalactic gourmets who wrote "To Serve Man".

Michael McNeil said...

Paco Wové: speaking of pedantic :-), you're right and MadisonMan is wrong. He spoke of “Humans have 23 chromosomes.” You mentioned that humans have “23 pairs of chromosomes” (emphasis added), which is correct.