It is possible to make artifical sperm from the cells of a woman's body. This allows lesbian couples to have babies that are genetically theirs. However, it also means that we can potentially have an all female society. No reproduction is lost and the problems of sexist discrimination are LONG GONE. This is actually possible to attain, but is it too extreme? Personally I think that it would be mass genecide of the male race and that you'd miss the male touch. But what do you think?
The fact is, it is unnatural and mixing where humans shouldn't. I have nothing against being gay, indeed I have a few friends that are gay, and they deserve just the same rights as us, but they need to accept the fact that they cannot have kids*, it's isn't that hard to understand. I don't think there would be an all female society either, suggesting that would be silly, there will always be men. * unless they adopt anyway.
Yeah, imagine a society where no-one can pee standing up*. It would suck. Anyway, where did you hear that science? Oh, and does Dane=15goingon5? *yes, I know women can but not without difficulty and looking silly. and no way can you write your name on stuff.
The theory is that if the woman didn't need the man the man would become obselete. Because it's two woman's genes there'd be two X chromosomes. therefore always makeing another female. Eventually all the males would "phase out". I think that it is sick
nice avatar dane. As far as my knowledge knows, you need both X and Y you can't phase one out. Anyone no more about the subject? Where did you here about this dane? Links?
I herd it on another forum. I have pasted it and added to it (those teenagers are stupid, they have a very cramped vocabulary) But I actually herd about this on one of the last days of my primary school years (reminisces...god those days were boring). A good friend told me about it. He thought that it meant that scientists were depriving men of sex! a eleven year-old shouldn't be thinking of things like that! Anyway that'll have been roughly 4 1/2 years ago
Luckily I'm doing chromosomes in school at the moment Two X chromosomes make a femal. One X and one Y makes a male (which always led me to wonder what two Y chromosomes would creat?) Hence the males would be "phased" out. I'll ask for a link in a second
:lol: :lol: :lol: No really its far better to have a fully integrated society. Everything works better when men and women are together. Its way more healthy and fun. When I was in college I heard about studies that suggested that even PMS was less of a problem for women who had contact with men on a regular basis( of course it is moreof a problem for the men). Then there is the thing about married men living longer then unmarried men and reportedly they are happier, too. edit to add : two Y chromosomes are nonviable if an X chromosome is not present. Some times a man does get a second Y chromosome and a preponderance of those men end up in prison for violent crimes, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.
Mmmm, well I think it might be fake science... I'm not sure though. I thought that injected people with choropyll would make them super energetic, so I'm probably not the best to speak about it. But say it was true there are a few problems with it. Not all women are gay, would want to be gay or ever will be. So you'll always need some men. Also, If man ever felt treatened by woman we'd use are strenght and capasticy for violence to dominat them. To stop them from creating they're man free world.
I like the sounds of that The woman don't have to be lesbians though, they don't even have to be a couple. All they need is for example a skin molecule! Every little bit of you carries your chromosomes so it doesn't really matter what they use. but the point is they don't have to be gay. they just need to decide which one will carry the child. However as you said not all woman are gay, and everyone needs some form of "pleasure" sometimes. therefore ann summers sales would boom! :badgrin: Just for the record, don't even try to overthrough us :x :evil: :roll:
I suppose the world could be ruled by Evil Lesibian feminist who want to wipe out man and plan to make all straight woman gay by brainwashing them via forcing them to watch dirity girl on girl movies and stuff....god...what a horrible,horrible future it would be.
Yer, so much girl-on-girl and no men to watch...I mean horrible evil lesbian feminists will never win! hahahahahaha there against killing and stuff so they'd be defensless! mwuhahahahahahahaa
I got an e-mail from a guy whos actually called James bond the other day. I wanted to reply 'Dear James, James Bond'. But I refrained, i'm sure if he heard the joke one my time he'd probably go mad.
Shit, I didn't mean that at all. I actually meant Dear James, James Bond. Good thing I didn't send it. I'd of made a right fool of myself!
yah, he would probably reply by saying 'bugger off.' and then he would come around to your house and shoot you.
Ha ha ha Phasing out the male race? It'll never happen. Sounds like the plot from some feminist dystopia. Don't file it under your most pressing concerns or anything. Hypothetically, it'd suck.
Yey, even a high preistess like the males :shock: anyway I have a source. Apperently it came from yesterdays telegraph. I'll go on the site and make a link now
OK I think I've found it. This sounds like it any way. It's the last paragraph that concerns us. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/17/nfert317.xml
Several things. First of all, these procedures are too difficult and expensive to ever be put to use on a large scale. Second, a few hundred years ago, most of modern medicine was considered to be within God's domain. God's domain is just a term used by people who are afraid of the future. Third, if a lesbian couple is willing to pay to have the procedure done, then more power to them. Fourth, the idea that men with Jacob's Syndrom (two Y chromosomes) are more prone to be in prison is based on a flawed study. The study found two XYY cases in a prison population. Because of the small size of the sample, this meant that the percentage of XYY seemed overly large. But further studies showed no overrepresentation of XYYs.
Or rather an old, stereotypical male fear. I agree to Ba on the adoption thing. Who defines what any couple has to accept or not, as long as it hurts noone (in which case society defines things to protect itself from)? A lot of straight couples cannot reproduce naturally because one of them is infertile. This is, in some cases (especially where the woman is concerned) genetically. Is it Gods will? Shouldn't they be asked, just as logically as you ask gay couples, to accept the fact that nature has dictated them, and adopt instead of undergoing expensive medical procedures? Or do you think in their case it would be more natural to combine their genetic material in a lab than in the case of the lesbian couple? (You may think so, but I'd be interested in hearing a detailed reason. ) Also, from what I know, Ba is right about the Xyy thing. There's the combination of XXY and XXX too. Nature is far more often "undecided" than most people guess. Another flawed study with similarily poor databases from the Eurpe of the fourties (not only Nazi Germany, but they jumped on it with enthusiasm) tried to prove that people with the blood group B are more prone to criminality. (The Nazis were so fond of this one because B is extremely rare in Northern Europe.) I don't want to intend any of you were using discriminatory material, but its a good example why you have to be so careful with seemingly scientific material. Anyone who is being paid for a study, no matter how poor the database, has to present an overwhelming conclusion drawn from it, to justify the money, the fame, and all the fishy rest. Most studies of that kind are only hints, and quite a lot of them have to be withdrawn or relativated after close examination.
Well thanks all for the replys and interesting points raised. But as Ba pointed out, it wont be widespread and will cost a lot. This is kinda the whole "males being phased out" undermined. But an interesting subject none the less.
I always thought it'd be snu-snu? OOh well. You can still have death by snoo-snoo if you want...But I wouldn't have thought it'd be that nice a way to go. Fry and...that..captin guy didn't like it much :badgrin: (referring to futurama here )
Futurama it was, I don't remember the spelling. While they didn't like it, I reserve the right to finding out first hand
"Skin...Bruised and broken...need rest...." Or something along those lines anyway. well it's your way to go
I like men. They are funny and often more interesting than other girls. I would definitely not want to see them all removed from earth. They can stay, so long as they don't act all superior. That's annoying and unattractive. :roll:
I didn't know that about birds, no wonder there all a bit mad... Well if they can get 2 girls pregnant I'm sure there's hope for genetically growing wombs and implanting them into men and then playing with the x & Ys of men to get a fertalised egg... So in the not too distant future Kenny and Rinso can create little doormen to populate the world. Thus reducing the likelihood of any woman wanting to live in it with them The question is: who will bear the kids?
I wrote a sci-fi story about an all-female society. Wasn't very good though. I should really finish the sequel... I can actually see some advantages, as well as a lot of disadvantages. For one thing, it would make getting a girlfriend a lot easier :lol:
Huuum...If i were to make a story of a all female society then it would probably end in the toatly destruction on the female race.....yey
I was more thinking a book to display the importance of both sexes. It would be a good way in which you could display what would happen if there was one dominant sex, it would obviously fall apart. Its better than all the digs at male dominance, instead looking at what would happen if feminism beat machoism and equal rights. Or if equal rights went so far as to cause the spectrum to tip to the other side. it would be ratehr interesting, does anyone know of a book like this or am i on to something.
Read "Ethan of Athos" (Louise McMasters Bujold), Consider her ways" (short story by John Wyndham) and " The Rainbow cadenza" (by J. Niel Schulman, which isn't the same situation, but is worth reading anyway) Then go and write the story anyway- the importance of diversity can't be overstressed.
Another consideration on top of this is what genetic diversity are you losing? Considering that you would in theory lose roughly half of the gene pool. Also genes are not all what they are cracked up to be, they are not the definative blueprint of a person. Just the bare basics. It is a bit like a cookbook while it may say cook the cake, it doesn't say what spoon to use. It assumes the mother (or in the the case of the cake cook) knows how to do these things*. Alot of what makes a person is from the mother and the environment during development. As to birds having the opposite chromosones, I was thinking abou this today. Male birds are often the pretty ones, maybe xx is linked to that. *Now you could say that all these extra instructional genes are in the mothers DNA, but then you have the instructions for one person housed in two people and it just spirals into absurdity from there....
Cool, we had this discussion briefly the other night, before people left the convo out of distress. They'd be called Rinny and Kenso. Cute wee hybrids.
O-kay, time for me to go all nerdy and kill the topic Yes, you can insert nuclei of adult cells in gametes. Getting them to work though is another kettle of fish. For starters, the DNA in the cells is operating under different conditions in each individual cell. The 'active' part is called "euchromatine" and it is the part used for producing the necessary proteins for the adult cell to function. The rest is the tightly packed "heterochromatine", which later studies have shown that it does play a role in protein production but it's not nearly as active as euchromatine. Adult cells have much less "active DNA" than stem cells and embryonic cells and changing them into stem cells is a continuing effort and we have a long way to go until success. Remember, Dolly was born after many failed atempts and the poor lamb experienced aging problems at a very early age. Moreover, the DNA in the sperm and the ova is acting differently. By priming an ovum you get embryonic tissues. By inserting the nucleus of a spermacyte in an ovum and activating the result, you get trophoblastic tissues (ie the embryonic sac and placenta). In a nutshell: you need DNA from both parents to make an embryo with all the accessories that allows it intrauterinal survival. And last time I checked, homosexual women were able to procreate either by going to sperm banks or by having heterosexual affairs.
So after understanding about...24% of that I come to the conclusion that we just don;t have the technology yet? Lot's of long cool words there. Hehe I think I'll dazzle my biology teacher with it, hehehehehe. wel actually it isn't that hard. She's cool and intyellegent etc etc but she just doesn't expect anyone to know half the stuff I do. Ha I say. Ok maybe I did undeerstand more than 24%, I'm doing chromosomes and DNA in biology at the moment. It find it funny that no one else seems to grasp it.
This is just oneof the issues thatt makes cloning difficult. Basicly, in some genes, the gene inharited from the father is automaticly dominant, in others it is true for the one from the mother. But clones recieve all their DNA from one person. If the person is male, then all of the genes that are dominant from the mother just don't work. Or they work improperly. Basicly, things get vary mest up. Note: It has been I while sience i last studied biology, so some of these facts may not be remembered correctly.
