The death of men

[ada]

Sorry boys, but the male of the species is on the way out. This'll happen between 15,000 and 25,000 years from now, the boffins reckon.

I spoke to a British professor about this a few years ago and the prediction is also going to be made (with a downwards revision of the time you have left) at an international conference next week.

The reason you're doomed, according to the theory,  is that the Y chromosome is decrepit. It's full of junk DNA and it's deteriorating and before too long it'll be gone, taking men with it.

The good news is that it doesn't matter, because we now have the means of reproducing without men.

Think of the bright future! No more inane threads about why chicks can't play piano as well as blokes! No more dumb polls about the hottest female pianist! No more snide comments about women and robots  or wives and pets 

Ah well. Enjoy the time you've got left!

[prometheus]

As a male, I can't wait!

[pianistimo]

i, for one, would be very sorry to see men go.  i mean, what else is there to live for?  a 'roomie' world with only women would be utterly indistinct.  all the joys of 'pulling one over' are gone.  borrowing money (women are much tighter on the pocket book).  eating out.  new clothes.  someone to follow around and pester. 

women would have to learn how to fix technology, cars, defend themselves, shoot guns, wrestle, play football (unless that goes out the window, too), go hunting.  this is just too much of a burden. 

tell us.  how can we save men from extinction?  seriously, i doubt that the world will go on as it is for another 100 years anyway - and both will have severe heat stroke if the temperature keeps getting hotter.  of course, wars, and famine, and weather disasters are also becoming a problem.  why worry about so many years down the line.  i mean one earthquake or disease could wipe out quite a few women and men.

i say - if they die out - there is no 'heaven on earth.'  i would become severely depressed.

[thalbergmad]

we now have the means of reproducing without men.

That is good news. Perhaps now we will be able to watch the football in peace.

Hopefully, women in the future will be able to lay eggs instead of waddling around with fat stomachs, expecting people to give up bus seats.

If there are no men, then every car parking space in the world will have to be widened to 25 metres.

Remember, vibrators can't mow lawns. Be grateful you have man and accept you are  second rate sub species.

Thal

[bernhard]

That is good news. Perhaps now we will be able to watch the football in peace.

Hopefully, women in the future will be able to lay eggs instead of waddling around with fat stomachs, expecting people to give up bus seats.

If there are no men, then every car parking space in the world will have to be widened to 25 metres.

Remember, vibrators can't mow lawns. Be grateful you have man and accept you are  second rate sub species.

Thal

At long last some common sense!

Most reasonable post in the forum ever!

I´m with you all the way.

BW
B

[bernhard]

As a male, I can't wait!

Er... you don´t have to;

BW
B

[pianistimo]

thalbergmad, women are hottest when they are pregnant.  something about knowing that you can't have any more than one child at a time - unless that is how people end up with twins and triplets.  if you've never experienced the sensuality of a pregnant woman - perhaps you should get married before complaining so much. 

why is a bus seat so important.  can't you afford a car yet? 

and, why do you consider women subspecies.  they can give you everything you want.  for a price.  this is considerable smarter thinking than men - who randomly just give things away.

[brewtality]

A world full of feminists (aka dykes) Egad!

[BoliverAllmon]

thalbergmad, women are hottest when they are pregnant.  something about knowing that you can't have any more than one child at a time - unless that is how people end up with twins and triplets.  if you've never experienced the sensuality of a pregnant woman - perhaps you should get married before complaining so much. 

why is a bus seat so important.  can't you afford a car yet? 

and, why do you consider women subspecies.  they can give you everything you want.  for a price.  this is considerable smarter thinking than men - who randomly just give things away.

have you seen the price of gas in england? OUCH!!!!!

[ada]

A world full of feminists (aka dykes) Egad!

hey just because there are no men doesn't mean all the remaining women will be feminists/dykes! Feminism would become obsolete if there were no blokes anyway.

And being a feminist doesn't make you a dyke! There are plenty of feminists who aren't gay and plenty of gay women who aren't feminists 

[pianistimo]

there are way more gay men than women even today.  why else are men so nonchalant about women and women so serious about what men say and do?  i, for one, take men very seriously.  i listen to what they have to say and try to understand where and from what vantage point they are coming from.  if a woman tries to understand a man - she is not 'gay.'  if she tries to 'connect' in some way - she is not a dyke (whatever that is).  women simply like to communicate.  but some men are like radio transistors that have broken connections.  you get some words and then all of a sudden - static.  the commnication breaks down into unintelligible something or other.  so - if it weren't for women making up for men - and occasionally apologizing for them in public - the men would be politically blundering all over the place.  women are concerned about manners and politeness.  if it were not for women - men would have no place in the civilized world.

ps most women i know rely on their husbands and not a vibrator.  i would be scared of electric shock.  at least with a husband you know it'll go down eventually, too.  i'm sorry - but i think vibrators might wear out a woman's sexuality and expectancy.  i mean - if all you wanted was vibrations you may as well go into the labs at various uni's studying earthquakes and just volunteer as a sort of guineau pig as to the 'turn on' level of women who are shaken to the core by 'good vibes.'  i think it sounds too mechanical.  probably a man who came up with the idea.  someone who was trying to get out of his manly duty. 

now - i understand a few men who are sincerely worn out by the constant sexual demands of their wives.  but, far more would benefit from the actual workout of attempting something other than eating dinner and reading a book.  i mean - ihave to beg my husband to come home at lunchtime sometime and surprise me.  men have odd sexual demands in the first place anyway.  'the woman must be exhausted' 'the woman should have come directly out of the shower and not had time to comb her hair' 'the woman should not be wearing makeup' -  women have to look good to feel sexual in the first place.  and, we need a little time to get ready.  i mean - rabbits are the only ones that do it without prior notice.  call an hour or two ahead of time and let us know that you are in the mood and then you'll have someone ready.  cook a meal.  read us an exerpt of your book.  show us a side of you that we haven't seen (helping do the dishes is a good one).  i mean if my husband did the dishes instead of stacking them in the sink - he'd get sex twice a day.
 

[ahinton]

if my husband did the dishes instead of stacking them in the sink - he'd get sex twice a day.

It's none of my business, of course - but have you told him this?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Sorry boys, but the male of the species is on the way out. This'll happen between 15,000 and 25,000 years from now, the boffins reckon.

No need to apologise - at least not to me, as I have no plans to be around that long.

I spoke to a British professor about this a few years ago and the prediction is also going to be made (with a downwards revision of the time you have left) at an international conference next week.

The reason you're doomed, according to the theory,  is that the Y chromosome is decrepit. It's full of junk DNA and it's deteriorating and before too long it'll be gone, taking men with it.

The good news is that it doesn't matter, because we now have the means of reproducing without men.

Yes, all this has already been quite widely circulated - but, given all the advances in medical science over recent decades, do you really believe that nothing can or will be done to reverse and balance this trend? Not even during a period of 25 millennia?

Think of the bright future! No more inane threads about why chicks can't play piano as well as blokes! No more dumb polls about the hottest female pianist! No more snide comments about women and robots  or wives and pets 

Well, every cloud has a silver lining, I suppose - even this one, it would seem (at least for as long as it remains a cloud on the horizon). That said, it would be a sad indictment of humanity if the above were achieveable only by deliberately doing nothing about this problem, would it not?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

about the dishes in the sink.  i don't want to get too explicit - but my husband and i are at sort of a passe.  he says i'd get sex 10 times a day if i shaved you know where.  i said, not in a million years.  women get cold there.  especially in the winter.  i can't imagine that God would have made it the way it is without some reason.  and, i said, i have no desire to return to pre-puberty.  so he's fantasizing about i don't know what - and i'm looking at the dishes in the sink.  but, he's a very sweet man, great lover, and great cook.  i figure that even if i don't get the dishes done - he at least cooks.  and, he got a bargain with me, because i like to mow the lawn (to get a tan).

[thalbergmad]

why is a bus seat so important.  can't you afford a car yet? 

Ferrari's dont like short journeys.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

ps most women i know rely on their husbands and not a vibrator.  i would be scared of electric shock.  

What were you gonna do, plug it into the national grid.

Thal

[brewtality]

hey just because there are no men doesn't mean all the remaining women will be feminists/dykes! Feminism would become obsolete if there were no blokes anyway.

And being a feminist doesn't make you a dyke! There are plenty of feminists who aren't gay 

Yes, they are known as 'old maids'

[zheer]

the male of the species is on the way out. This'll happen between 15,000 and 25,000 years from now, the boffins reckon.

  Well am not about to go without a BANG if its 15,000 years from now.

[quasimodo]

Ada, I'm very curious to read more about that theory. Any internet ressources?
I can imagine there are observable scientific facts backing it but to me it seems very presomptuous to build a scenario of evolution as far as it's so chaotic...
And even though the theory is accurate, in the current state of the world, there's no doubt that science will try to fix the problem by genetic manipulations, and probably succeed. 15,000 years is an eternity considering how fast science advances.

[pianistimo]

i think it was in popular science magazine a few issues back.  i read that too, and kinda went 'ok - well, natural disasters will do us in before this.  and, war.'  something about the y chromosome being wreaked with breakdowns over the years.  i don't fully understand it myself - but as i see it - without men - the world would seem fairly dismal.  now, occasionally i just want to be by myself and my husband doesn't understand that - but, usually i like to be with him.  he's like an extension of myself.  i don't know what i really think sometimes until i talk to him and we discuss whatever it is.  and, same for him, now.  he likes to talk about things - even if he's sort of made up his mind.

[timothy42b]

about the dishes in the sink.  i don't want to get too explicit - but my husband and i are at sort of a passe.  he says i'd get sex 10 times a day if i shaved you know where. 

I don't know how you could get a whole lot more explicit than that, I'm not sure I needed that much information.

At the risk of bordering on crude, would it be worth considering a compromise?  Perhaps neatly trimmed instead of actually shaved?  When I wore a beard I used a hair clippers with a comb attachment that let me trim the whole thing to a nice short length. 

[bernhard]

At the risk of bordering on crude, would it be worth considering a compromise? 

Nah. Compromises are terrible. No one gets happy. She should just go Telly Savalas

BW
B.

[prometheus]

So is anyone missing our little big friend Neanderthaler?

[pianistimo]

i just know the moment i did that, i'd break my leg again.  that was the scariest moment of my life (and the only day i had no clean underwear - so i wasn't wearing any).  i called my husband from the hospital and said 'quick, bring me some underwear.'  he didn't know my leg was broken at first.  i didn't care about the leg.

now, what would a doctor think.  it would be an abysmally scary thing to me.  and what about winter time.    men just don't understand reality.  it's there for a reason.  to keep you warm.  why do men make things so difficult.  i do not want to be prepubecent. 

that's like telling a man - go shave you knwo where.  they wouldn't do it (would they)?  especially if it was some kind of product that might give them cancer.  i thought about nair - but i think it's bad for your skin.  and, i don't want to keep repeating some kind of painful procedure like duct tape.  i don't care what other women do.  i want some privacy.

[rimv2]

hey just because there are no men doesn't mean all the remaining women will be feminists/dykes! Feminism would become obsolete if there were no blokes anyway.

And being a feminist doesn't make you a dyke! There are plenty of feminists who aren't gay and plenty of gay women who aren't feminists 

The remaining women would become men, or die out for lack of diversity.

[anekdote]

I've heard of this thesis/prediction before. Bryan Sykes wrote about it in his book, "Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men."

I don't take the book or its ideas too seriously. Even besides its obvious media-pandering, it is just full of bad "jump-to-conclusions" science. Sykes' argument for the future elimination of the male, the Y chromosome, has to do with chromosomal deteriorization and declining sperm counts. Declining sperm counts are best attributable to industrialization and its side-effect of environmental toxins. Chromosomal deteriorization is greatly exaggerated by Sykes, and even in the worst case scenario it would never deteriorate to nothing (at the most, the Y chromosome would deteriorate to one gene, as in kangaroos).

Regardless, human civilization will probably not exist in the thousands of generations needed for this event to take place. The advanced technologies needed for female only reproduction would not exist. And obviously, reproduction cannot occur without both participants. If such a scenario ever did arise (which it wouldn't), it would be the death of humanity and not just the death of men.

[prometheus]

The quality of books on gender on average is rather poor, to put it mildly. It must be one of the most opinionating topics.

[pianistimo]

by then, anekdote, women would be cloned.  they would use the men who were still alive for organs.  (oops.  that sounds bad.  only certain ones).  hypothetical of course. 

no. i really think men are very important.  it's just the ones that take themselves too seriously - you just want to kick in the pants sometimes.  women keep men humble.  that's why God created women.  prometheus was confused about the garden of eden - but i think God gave adam  - eve - so that he wouldn't think of himself as perfect anymore.  she'd let him know everything that was wrong with him.  and, she'd occasioanlly tempt him.  this way -noone claims complete righteousness. 

[rc]

That's a funny theory.

I want to read up the bible in the near future...  Getting curious.  I'm gradually starting to believe in a higher power.

[le_poete_mourant]

Obviously, humans were meant to reproduce without the opposite sex.  Read the bible... Adam's rib = asexual reproduction.  None of this "test tube" stuff; you've got to go straight to the Big Guy.     

warning: may include sarcasm. 

[pianistimo]

as i see it - men are the higher power - until you know God.  men can be the 'world' of a woman.  i'm serious.  if a man truly loves a woman - there is this very empowering thing about it to her.  she isn't doing things for him because she has to - but because there is this love there that makes her want to please him.  and, visa-versa. 

but, then, when you get to know God - that is a million times the power and more - but we don't always see it.  was just watching pbs (yet again) about how a child grows in the womb.  it starts out fairly a blob - but recognizable parts.  then at about 26 weeks the child is actively sucking it's thumb and things like that.  they say that favoring the right hand over the left and visa-versa starts then (and not later).  later on, the child starts hearing everything the mother is eating, doing, etc. and develops this startle reflect.  also, some ultrasounds cause babies to hear what might seem like a loud train (because water transmits sound 4x faster than air).  if the ultra sound is point towards the babies ear - the sound transmits waves in the water or something - and that is where the loud loud noise comes in.  babies begin to grimace, make faces.  then, at the end they start gulping water (preparing for their eventual arrival and need to learn to gulp and eat). 

to me, this is not something that could randomly happen.  any creature has such amazing developmental stages that are so specific and ordered.  i know that i'm kinda unscientific about a lot of things - but i watch shows and stuff and realize that what i don't know is so much.  and God had it all figured out from the beginning.  how amazing!  i really want to meet God.  it is hard to fathom someone's love if you can't literally be WITH them and talk directly to them.  but, i have always felt it indirectly, in terms of guidance in my life.  i pray about something and voila (maybe not the next minute ore even day - but often it is) i get an answer.  sometimes the immediacy shocks me - even though i profess to believe.  faith is not by sight.  it is a sort of 'knowing' that God is there and cares about you individually.  about the things that go well in your life and the things that don't.  when things get really bad - we are told to fast and pray.  i have never experienced a fast where i did not hear an answer to a problem.  i'm serioius.  financial problemsl, whatever.  it is an amazing discovery to me. 

[ada]

ok, I can give you lucky people an update on this theory when the embargo lifts in a few hours.

I bet you can't wait

watch this space...

[ahinton]

ok, I can give you lucky people an update on this theory when the embargo lifts in a few hours.

I bet you can't wait

watch this space...

Fine - but, while those who may be interested do so, it is surely not unimportant to point out (without wishing to presume or prejudge what this theoretical update might contain) that the differences between our present-day the world and that of a mere century ago - cultural, scientific, communicational, climatic, social, demographic, political (not to mention artistic!) - are such that it is no small wonder that any theorist who predicts that a situation even as drastic in its significance as the one you mention will have arisen fifteen to twenty millennia from now is likely to cut little ice with anyone, however interesting the theory might be in itself. The particular advances in medical science that may take place in the next few years, decades, centuries cannot realistically be predicted, but there is little doubt that, unless we all blow ourselves up or become subject to some massive natural disaster or series thereof, ways will be found to overcome this problem (assuming in the first place that there is a genuine risk of its occurrence some time in the future) long before it takes hold. This has indeed already been suggested in this thread, although I cannot help but note that you have not yet responded to it.

The death of tonality was also predicted some time ago in certain circles; time has shown that it has been not so much exaggerated as just plain wrong. I do realise, however, that chromosomes and chromaticism are not quite the same thing...

Best,

Alistair

[ada]

You are right anekdote, Bryan Sykes is the boffin I inerviewed when he was doing publicity for his book.

But I wouldn't dismiss the theory out of out of hand.

As I mentioned, it came up again this week at a genetics conference. first of all, let me correct myself on the timeframe. It was 15 million, not 15,000, so there's a little more breathing space 

There's apparently no doubt the Y chromosome is disappearing. The only question is when.

But according to the latest theory this doesn't necessarily mean men will disappear - rather, it could result in a whole new species of human.

This is how it works:

The Y chromosome only has a small handful of genes left put of an original 1400. Many  are "pseudo genes" that have only recently become inactive.

The reseason the Y has been losing genes is that unlike other matched genes which can recombine with a partner, the Y is on its own and can't "refresh" itselt. So mutations build up and eventually the faulty genes disappear till there are no genes and no more chromosome.

But... the latest theory says new genes will take over the ones on the Y that turn embryos into boys. (ie, the SRY gene which switches on the mechanism that produces testes)

So you'll have one group of peple with Y sex-determinging genes and another group with new sex determining genes.

Eventually those groups will split apart because they will only be able to reproduce within their own groups. The two groups will eventually evolve in different directions and bingo you've got a new species of hominid.

Nifty idea, huh?

[ada]

The advanced technologies needed for female only reproduction would not exist. And obviously, reproduction cannot occur without both participants. If such a scenario ever did arise (which it wouldn't), it would be the death of humanity and not just the death of men.

So not true! Sorry but it's already been done.

So many animals have been cloned that no one gets excited anymore and British scientists cloned a human embryo last year.

Cloning technology is here, it can be done and it is being done.

The technology isn't the barrier, just obstruction by governments and the religious right.

[le_poete_mourant]

What's the point of life without sex? 

[ahinton]

But I wouldn't dismiss the theory out of out of hand.

As I mentioned, it came up again this week at a genetics conference. first of all, let me correct myself on the timeframe. It was 15 million, not 15,000, so there's a little more breathing space 

There's apparently no doubt the Y chromosome is disappearing. The only question is when.

But according to the latest theory this doesn't necessarily mean men will disappear - rather, it could result in a whole new species of human.

This, by your own hand, would therefore appear to negate the title of the thread that you initiated. Furthermore, if we're talking about a thousand times longer than the already very long term time frame that you originally cited (and thank you for the clarification here), then what I wrote would accordingly seem - arithmetically, at least - to be around 1,000 times truer than I thought it to be when I wrote it.

The genetic progress theories remain interesting, for all that - and I am not "dismissing" this particular one "out of hand" - but however "nifty" an idea the one about which you write may be, the time frame is again one that will be of no meaningful relevance to people living now or at any time in the future until such time as that other piece of genetic research that may enable the abolition of human death other than by choice becomes fully and reliably established.

Another thought that occurs to me here is that, whilst genuine "progress" and a desire to achieve it is one thing, the inevitable fallout from it in the form of people doing certain things just because they can is another that is more than worthy of consideration. Those involved should stop to consider whether or not they want to pursure certain areas of research and why, for the hopeful benefit of humankind, rather than indulging in it on a kind of academic whim for no better reason than to see what can be achieved. Of course, a certain amount of the latter has to occur, otherwise any real worthwhile progress will likely be impeded. The proper controls that are required, however, are the ones I've just mentioned - those of the disciplined, diligent and thoughtful reserchers themselves, not those of governments (which change and come and go anyway) or religious factions (which don't all change or come and go); that said, governments and religious organisations do - in theory, at least - have duties of care to those whom they serve, so it is only reasonable to expect them to have and express opinions on such matters - which is a very different matter from trying to be dictatorial about them.

Best,

Alistair

[ada]

What's the point of life without sex? 

I'm not going to argue the toss on that one. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of saying we don't have the technology to clone people yet.

the time frame is again one that will be of no meaningful relevance to people living now or at any time in the future .

Sure, the discussion is academic really. But it's still important to understand the mechanisms by which genes work, which is really what this is all about.

Another thought that occurs to me here is that, whilst genuine "progress" and a desire to achieve it is one thing, the inevitable fallout from it in the form of people doing certain things just because they can is another that is more than worthy of consideration. Those involved should stop to consider whether or not they want to pursure certain areas of research and why, for the hopeful benefit of humankind, rather than indulging in it on a kind of academic whim for no better reason than to see what can be achieved. Of course, a certain amount of the latter has to occur, otherwise any real worthwhile progress will likely be impeded. The proper controls that are required, however, are the ones I've just mentioned - those of the disciplined, diligent and thoughtful reserchers themselves, not those of governments (which change and come and go anyway) or religious factions (which don't all change or come and go); that said, governments and religious organisations do - in theory, at least - have duties of care to those whom they serve, so it is only reasonable to expect them to have and express opinions on such matters - which is a very different matter from trying to be dictatorial about them.

You do go on, Al

I think you are saying that researchers need to be responsible. I agree. But you're always going to have to have an element that's prepared to test the boundaries if you want real progress to occur.

[ahinton]

What's the point of life without sex?

I'm not going to argue the toss on that one. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy

Neatly put! - one "toss" and one pun within the space of just 16 words...

Sure, the discussion is academic really. But it's still important to understand the mechanisms by which genes work, which is really what this is all about.

With that much I agree entirely; this particular problem, for example, will not be solved without such prior understanding.

You do go on, Al

I think you are saying that researchers need to be responsible. I agree. But you're always going to have to have an element that's prepared to test the boundaries if you want real progress to occur.

I don't really, you know! My point about the conduct of research was not only that researchers need to remain responsible (as you agree) and that some must nevertheless test the boundaries in the interest of progress (as I had already indicated in what I wrote) but that the latter instances are the ones where the tighter controls may sometimes be needed in order to ensure that those kinds of inventive researcher do not simply do things because they are possible (which can be a quite different matter). My other point was that religious and political organisations' right of expression of opinion on should not be abused by their trying assume and exert dictatorial power over all that reserchers do.

Anyway, let's now hear it for those researchers who will assume the mantle of the Y chromosome challenge and overcome it; I think that we can reasonably assume that they will accomplish this in rather less time than that predicted for its total demise by the writer you mention...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

putting a few men in a freezer couldn't hurt.

[ahinton]

putting a few men in a freezer couldn't hurt.

"Couldn't hurt" what or whom? The men put in it? Those who put them in? The freezer itself? Who should decide who puts them in? Who should decide who is to be put in? Who should be put in? (not your oft-mentioned husband, presumably). Who should purchase, own, maintain and fund the running costs of the freezer? For how long and at what temperature should it run? Might not such an act contribute to the much-vaunted global warming? Lastly - and perhaps most importantly - what could it possibly achieve in terms of addressing the Y chromosome problem which "ada" has drawn to our attention?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i thought if you suddenly froze someone - you could save their parts.  you know, dry-ice them when they're in the shower or something.  if it was accomplished now - in 15 to 20 million years they could unthaw and possibly even walk around a bit.  of course, if he was the only man left, he might get a big head again.

[ahinton]

i thought if you suddenly froze someone - you could save their parts.  you know, dry-ice them when they're in the shower or something.  if it was accomplished now - in 15 to 20 million years they could unthaw and possibly even walk around a bit.  of course, if he was the only man left, he might get a big head again.

You appear now to be speculating in the realms of cryogenics - but you didn't answer any of my questions!

I couldn't help but imagine that, if you're not careful, (Neander)Thal might come along and ask you what kind of "big head" the only man on earth might get in a world otherwise populated only by women - so I've saved him the trouble...

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

  i mean if my husband did the dishes instead of stacking them in the sink - he'd get sex twice a day.
 

Whoa...I'm going to be getting lots of sex when I get married. I did the dishes for my girlfriend the other day totally unprompted.

[pianistimo]

why do my threads turn into sponge bob episodes?

[leucippus]

Sorry boys, but the male of the species is on the way out. This'll happen between 15,000 and 25,000 years from now, the boffins reckon.

I spoke to a British professor about this a few years ago and the prediction is also going to be made (with a downwards revision of the time you have left) at an international conference next week.

The reason you're doomed, according to the theory,  is that the Y chromosome is decrepit. It's full of junk DNA and it's deteriorating and before too long it'll be gone, taking men with it.

Not that I really care, but the above opinionated garbage is just that.  Biologists simply don't understand things well enough to even make such a prediction with any certainty.  Any biologists who make such an assertion are simply kidding themselves to believe that they know enough to actually make such a prediction.

Moreover, many biologists still believe in evolution by "natural selection", but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that "natural selection" is a thing of the past.  That may have been nature's original course, but with the advent of modern medicine and artificial maternity methods "natural selection" has long since been destroyed.  We are keeping people alive to reproduce and pass on genes that would have never been passed on via natural selection.  We are helping people get pregnant and have babies who would never naturally have them, etc., etc., etc.  So anything we think we might know about evolution via natural selection is totally irrelevant now anyway.

I personally believe that the entire human race is ultimately doomed irregardless of gender.  We have already over-populated the earth and we aren't even about to consider population control.   We simply aren't a very wise species as a whole.  We are self-centered and greedy and that will ultimately be our nemesis.  Not that all humans are like that, but unfortunately the bulk of the masses are and that's what will be the deciding factor in our fate.

In the meantime I think it's pretty pathetic that anyone would be happy to see a gender wiped off the face of the earth.  Speaks volumes about the personality of the person who feels that way.

[thalbergmad]

We simply aren't a very wise species as a whole. 

Your post supports this.

labelling someone elses post as opinionated garbage I think is out of order.

I took ada's original post as a bit of harmless provocotive fun.

Anyway, i am sure she does not need me to stand up for her.

Thal

[Nightscape]

Mabye the Y chromosone will die out in a 10 million years.... but mabye we will have discovered immortality by then.  Mabye we won't have organic bodies by then.  Mabye the human race will have died out by then.  Who knows?  How can you predict 10 million years in the future?

[prometheus]

Organic bodies are way way superior to mechanical ones.

Actually, the distinction is a strange one.

The main difference between the two is that in a mechanical body one would have all processes created by by parts made out of metal; think cogs, springs, etc.

In a biochemical machine we don't use metal objects shaped into cogs and springs. No, we use molecules as cogs and springs.

[Nightscape]

Well, it appears we've already made some progress in that direction then...