Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Men No Longer Needed?

17:43 / 10.07.01

Eggs Fertilized Without Sperm

quote:
"The beauty of this technique is that it makes cloning completely unnecessary. This actually is a much better technique and ethically much more acceptable because you have chromosomes from two partners."

Professor Winston said it was theoretically possible for a person to reproduce themselves using the technique.

However, the use of chromosomes from the same person massively increased the risk that a baby would suffer from genetic defects.

Does anyone else find this stuff slightly scary?

02:27 / 11.07.01

Nope. I find it interesting and funny. Do you relly need an egg? Can't you just keep impregnating(sp?) yourself over and over?

05:22 / 11.07.01

However, the use of chromosomes from the same person massively increased the risk that a baby would suffer from genetic defects.

You know, for some reason, I think that eliminating men from the equation is somewhat out of the question. Unless you want a society of women with babies, or to be accurate we'll call them clones, who become more and more genetically degraded with each passing generation.

Fear not. We're not that close yet.

Jamieon

12:59 / 11.07.01

Fear not anyway.

I mean, who cares if, in a couple of hundred years time, "mankind" is replaced by "womenkind". It's all "humankind". It doesn't matter what the future inhabitants of Earth have dangling between their legs.

Does it?

And, anyway, if the most utopian fantasies born of cybernetics, nanotechnology and queer theory bear fruit, distinctions like "male" and "female" may cease to exist in any recognizable, physical form; relegated, perhaps, to the existential realm where "being" is described, not by what you "are", but by what you do or how you act.

Yeah, this might be a bit of a superutopian rant, but, Brenden, don't you think the castration fear implicit in your last post ("Don't be scared guys! Men will survive!") is just a teensy bit reactionary?

But you might've been joking.........

Frances Farmer

09:39 / 13.07.01

He wasn't.

09:39 / 13.07.01

I don't think procreation is the real problem. The future will bring a population growth that it would be nice to hold back a bit.

How do you do this?

Fewer WOMEN. Women are the cause of population growth. They always have been. The truth is that we've always had more men than are necessary strictly for procreation.

If we have a major problem on population, we'll probably try to discourage people from having daughters (using genetic engineering, I'm sure we could figure out a way to choose the sex of the child).

I think this is more likely than eliminating men.

09:39 / 13.07.01

I'd be very surprised if governments could ever have the power to force people into having mainly boys to curb population growth. That's a slightly separate issue in a way: the areas that have the fastest increase in population are exactly the areas it would be hardest to implement such genetic engineering anyway.

I'm not scared that men will be eliminated, I'm just scared of the possibility. Two women can have a perfectly healthy baby girl. In theory, men could be made redundant. Unless they come up with some way to grow embryos outside the womb, which probably isn't too far off, either.

Jamieon

10:48 / 13.07.01

Here we go again.

quote: Who cares if, in a couple of hundred years time, "mankind" is replaced by "womenkind". It's all "humankind". It doesn't matter what the future inhabitants of Earth have dangling between their legs.

Does it?

And, anyway, if the most utopian fantasies born of cybernetics, nanotechnology and queer theory bear fruit, distinctions like "male" and "female" may cease to exist in any recognizable, physical form; relegated, perhaps, to the existential realm where "being" is described, not by what you "are", but by what you do or how you act.

Yeah, this might be a bit of a superutopian rant, but, Minor 9th, don't you think the castration fear implicit in your last post ("Men must survive!") is just a teensy bit reactionary?

15:23 / 13.07.01

Sheesh. You alleviate the fears of the original poster by telling him it's not liable to happen anytime soon and everyone thinks your a conservative monster.

reidcourchie

18:31 / 13.07.01

I read the title of this thread and thought excellent I can stay at home and read.

Originally posted by minor 9th
"I'd be very surprised if governments could ever have the power to force people into having mainly boys to curb population growth."

China springs to mind.

18:47 / 13.07.01

Telling people to have less children (one per family, or whatever) is a lot simpler, and perhaps more understandable, than telling them they can only have one sex of child. And the cost of implementation would be massive. That was my point.

And Jamieon: You construed my response as reactionary. It's not. I'm not worried that men are going to be made redundant at any point in the future - personally I think both sexes need each other at some level, not just for reproduction - I'm just scared by the theoretical possibility. Just as I'm scared by the possibility of nuclear war. I know it's not exactly imminent, and it may never happen, but it could.

But I completely agree with your views on queer theory etc. It's possible to speculate at length on what the future holds for humans. What I'm saying is that now that this chromosome technology exists, a whole new avenue has become possible. No-one really knows what impact it will have.

Jamieon

18:07 / 14.07.01

It's just that these things rarely result in a simple A to B narrative, which is basically what these fears about the elimination of "mankind" amount to. You know, the idea that, now we've got this technology that makes men less essential in the reproductive sense, men themselves are going to be made redundant..... It's such a reductive, paranoid way of looking at the situation. Here's a few reasons why this line of thinking is so silly:. Men, as you point out, are not "important" simply because of their ability to impregnate; and who are these evil male hating bastards that are out to wipe us out now that we aren't as.... potent? And what about the millions upoun billions of other things that effect thinking and history; where do they come into the equation?

It's all so much more complicated than "not useful, will disappear".

It's "avenues", not "avenue".

whole new avenues will become possible.

06:48 / 20.07.01

quote:Originally posted by reidcourchie:
...
Originally posted by minor 9th
"I'd be very surprised if governments could ever have the power to force people into having mainly boys to curb population growth."

China springs to mind.

Actually, I don't look on this as nearly such a repressive thing. Encouraging people to have sons rather than daughters could be as simple as giving tax breaks to a couple without daughters. This is not currently a reasonable law because it would probably involve abortion, but in the very near future, it could be as simple as going to the doctor and predetermining the sex of the child.

There wouldn't be anything sinister about this. I'd support the law if it became necessary.

The Return Of Rothkoid

06:48 / 20.07.01

I was under the impression that in China, the laws pushed families to have only one child, irrespective of sex? I didn't think that it specifically said "no girls", but rather, that was an effect of families wanting the family name to remain in currency - which would happen wih a male child, rather than a female. Moreover; in earlier years, wasn't the question of dowries a big issue?

Once again, I'm not entirely sure on this, but I seem to remember it from somewhere. Anyone able to clear it up?

12:53 / 20.07.01

Before communism, girl babies were drowned - expensive, and not very good at helping on the farm (China is a big country, but not a wealthy one).
After (I think) the Cultural Revolution (one of them movements, anyway), women were granted equal status as comrades in the fight.
There's still friction between the two modes.

(Note: I get all this from watching Chinese movies and reading Amy Tan and Maxine Hong Kingston. Historic accuracy not guaranteed.)

13:46 / 20.07.01

SMatthew, I'd like you to explain why you think the answer to population control is to have fewer women. It doesn't seem a very logical plan to me. Are you proposing this plan simply because women carry babies to term and deliver them? Keep in mind that while women are pregnant, that's approximately 9 months that women cannot conceive and bear another child. Add approximately one more year while a woman is nursing (if she chooses to nurse) that a woman is not likely to get pregnant.

Now bear in mind that while the woman has at least a 9-month window in which not to get pregnant (while she's carrying child #1), the man who also shares responsibility for the child inside her could potentially impregnate as many fertile women that he has sex with at that time.

So... am I missing something here? In your equation, I mean.

Finally, let's just say for the purpose of argument that there happens mainstream acceptance of women reproducing without men. Does this make men obsolete? I don't think so. I do believe that men and women need each other in more ways than simply to make a baby.

To paraphrase one of the best quotes I ever read that really defines what I believe about men & women is that it's not an either or situation, rather men and woman are two halves of a whole, and when they work together, their power is doubled.

22:10 / 20.07.01

According to Dr. Dennis Van Gervin, anthropologist from the University of Colorado, population growth is not effectively reduced by a reduction in the male population. This can probably be studied fairly easily (and I believe it has), since wars often devastate the male population, without doing terrible damage to the female population. It also makes theoretical sense, because a single man can impregnate several women, and potentially have countless children. Thus, there is always competition among men. Halving them wouldn't reduce reproduction potential of the population as a whole. Halving the number of women, howevever, would.

Regarding your other statements, I agree wholeheartedly. People serve other functions than reproduction machines. That was, in fact, part of my point. As a populace (though this is different for individuals) our concern is rarely "how can we have children?" but "how can we stop?"

Ganesh

22:18 / 20.07.01

More men? %Tragedy...%

09:11 / 22.07.01

the only solution, given the absence in several posts here [except Jameion] of any model of ideology, or indeed text,that might otherwise interrupt the inevitable copulation of men and women wilfully and recklessly overpopulating everywhere, is for the Haus to snip things in the bud and institute the Penis Vault.

Incidentally the Repopulation Programs instituted after the Devastation of Men in war dont just happen 'naturally', I believe. things like the non-availability of legal abortion and/or active rewards for those willing to sprog for their countries also get in on the act.

Mordant Carnival

09:11 / 22.07.01

Whilst I certainly don't want to denigrate the other people posting on this thread, and whilst I think healthy, ongoing debate is neccessary (hell, vital) when we start to stray into this sort of territory, I'd like to point out that this kind of technology is going to be meaningless to the great majority of humankind. Three quarters of the world can't even afford the most basic healthcare, let alone the kind of thing we're talking about here.

As for the theoretical scenario where we get rid of men... I don't think so. I like blokes. So do a lot of other people. My profound hope is that as we advance arm in arm towards the bright dawn of the future (etc etc chiz chiz moan drone) we'll stop caring so much about what's between our legs and worry more about what's between our ears.

09:11 / 22.07.01

while this new possibility of women having female children without so much as a drop of sperm [the substance formerly assumed to be uniquely active] does immediately play into the idea of designer children and a consumer attitude to reproductive rights [along with other types of IVF], reproductive technologies do become available [or perhaps to use a Foucauldian term 'administered'] globally. though I cant imagine what world ideologies would suddenly leap up and embrace the production of more girls - the reverse does seem to be the case - esp. regarding the question of abortion esp. as it follows medical tests for the health of the baby which also show the sex.

null this is an article about the results of a census on boy preference in Asia
some highlights:
quote: Observation 4: The overriding goal of many family planning programs has been merely to reduce fertility. But if a country's population program is almost solely concentrated on reducing the number of births, this distorts the sex ratio at birth, where son preference is great (Gu, 1994).
Observation 6: Greater economic development, affluence, education, and knowledge do not necessarily ameliorate son preference or reduce the use of sex-selective abortion.
Observation 7: Public concern about the "missing girl" problem in Asia focuses on the plight of the men who will be unable to find brides 20 years hence. This focus itself is male-oriented and reflects high valuation of males and disregard of the needs of females. Meanwhile, the fate of the abandoned, aborted, murdered, or maltreated girls is barely seen as a problem (Greenhalgh and Li, 1995).

ynh

00:00 / 23.07.01

I thought I'd drop by with my links down to scare the folks who're already paranoid.

CNN reported on a subdermal contraceptive for males which should be available, at least for us pigs, in about 4 years. Since this will lower male sex drive, those with the implants will receive testosterone injections. Up testosterone, up estrogen, up it too much and males grow breasts. Couple that with pesticides saturating the (global) environment with estrogen and already causing mutations and increasing female amphibian populations...

>>wanders off whistling<<

Mordant Carnival

16:30 / 23.07.01

Yeah, I read about that in the New Scientist. I mean, wow. Great. Except, and I hate to burst anyone's bubble here, we've already had female subdermal contraceptives for ten years or so; one such (NORPLANT) was withdrawn a couple of years back because of side effects (see here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_331000/331618.stm http://www.students.haverford.edu/wmbweb/writings/cgnorplant.html http://www.mindspring.com/~advance/norplant.htm)

Now imagine the huge hormonal upheavals that the male contraceptive and its attendant testosterone injections will cause.

I think I hear the patter of tiny lawsuits...