Slashdot Mirror
Sperm Made From Female Bone Marrow, Men Obsolete?
Shaitan Apistos writes "British scientists have discovered a way to turn female bone marrow into sperm, allowing women to reproduce without the need of male companionship. All children born of this method would be female, due the lack Y chromosomes, and there is high chance of birth defects. Eggs also can be created from male bone marrow, but men looking to reproduce would still need to find a surrogate mother to handle the gestation period. I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new amazonian overlords and remind them that men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars."
I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new amazonian overlords and remind them that men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars.
Also, SNOO SNOO!
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
...so where do transsexuals fit in here?
British scientists have discovered a way to move around by walking, making wheeled transportation obsolete. All trips made with this method would be short or very slow due the lack of speed, and there is high chance of being late. I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new ambling overlords and remind them that airplanes are still pretty handy for the really long trips.
From a sexual point of view, most women are still part conditioned and part pre-programmed to want male ahem companionship. (I could put this much more crudely but I won't). Without these urges our species wouldn't exist. You can't suddenly replace that in a generation. If you had many generations that could survive just as well (ie elliminate high birth defects etc) perhaps you'd see human sex drive die off. I like sex, so let's hope not.
From a social and evolutionary point of view, while men and women can replace each other for most things it is still true that the male tends to be physically bigger and buliker, and prefer science and math while women tend to be smaller and have more interests in social bonds, fashion and nest-making. We'd need to change both society and biology to change that. (Note that I'm not saying a man can't be a splendid nest-maker or that a woman can't do heavy work, or even that this should be discouraged - nothing sexier than a woman with a brain, or one that can kick arse - I'm just stating what the trend is currently and that it takes time to change such trends.)
So while a few scornful women may wish to bomb men out of existence but we ain't going anywhere anytime soon. Let's all be friends, instead.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
as soon as scientists develop a machine that automatically opens pickle jars, men are fscked.
:(
I don't want to be obsolete.
now I know how Windows feels.
-I only code in BASIC.-
What happens when we have the technology to grow babies from a sperm + egg to birth without the use of a female host? Will girls be obsolete then, as well as men?
Wouldn't that be like having a child with your twin, rather than something like cloning?
This could be genuine good news for :
/. to get laid.
- Homosexual couples (2 lesbians, or 2 gay men + 1 surrogate mother)
- Couples where 1 is trans gender (and lack the correct type of gonads)
One day such technology would enable both parents in such couples to be the biological parents.
Now back to humour :
Yes, we *DO* welcome our new Amazon overlords.
Specially since, if as a consequence of this the percentage of women increases in the general population, this new girls:boys ratio (men are rare) when added to eons-old instinct (sex drive) will finally increases the chances for the average
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I think something people seem to be missing from this is that it could be great for couples (of whatever orientation) with men who are infertile. If sperm can be produced artificially from their bone marrow, they could still father children biologically.
Isn't Will Smith starring in some movie with tagline "the last man on earth"? Did the women kill the rest of them?
Full Tilt
Before you go throwing out the male gender, stop for a moment and consider this:
Sperm extracted from my bone is a lot less painful to obtain than from your bones. Think about it!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
It's already been done:
https://www.officialtvwebsite.com/onetouchjaropener/ver3/index.asp?did=644&phone=1-800-540-6849&refcode=jar3Kg5
If men had been the ones carrying the babies I'd betcha good money that we'd have had artificial wombs perfected in the 1930's.
Hell, I be making sperm every time i bone a female.
This won't be allowed to happen. IKEA will go out of business.
Stick Men
But my sperm is Organic(TM). No telling what you're gonna get with the fake stuff.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Who says we didn't ;)
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I've been obsolete from a reproductive point of view for some time now.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
1.) This is an argument against all those advocating to ban same sex marriage, because they "cannot reproduce". Quite the common argument recently. Despite my second point.
2.) THEY DID THIS FIVE YEARS AGO. Really. While I was still in high school I cheered the first time someone pulled this off. I used it in a debate with someone on the case of gay marriage. Its in my old Science News... I mean this might be a team doing it again, or doing it better, but they are still not the first.
Just my 2 cents.
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
That, or babies would be a lot...thinner. (Damn, just thinking about it hurts.)
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
...on a similar theme (maleless society after a plague -- women reproduce via cloning).
"Houston, Houston, Do You Read?"
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Cloning reproduces (more, or less, given epigenetics, and the source of the mitochondrial DNA in the egg) a copy of an adult. This technique allows the genetic equivalent of sexual reproduction from two (or three, again depending on the egg) parents. For two-genetically female couples, yes, it will allow, when reliable, replacing the trip to the sperm bank with a trip to "gene shop".
It will also allow infertile persons to have genetic children (like the planet needs more humans).
If we're going to obsolete men, let's start with the most overtly misogynistic, please. Imagine the freedom for women when they don't have to hide their bodies because most the local men are incapable of (or simply disinterested in) controlling themselves and can make their own life decisions without having to defer to some thug.
There have been several SF stories that covered this subject. Most presented an optimistic future with no men. There would certainly be no more unplanned pregnancies. Anyone who's heard about the major women's street fight in LA a couple of months back knows better, though. Without men to do most of the dying, women can be just as ruthless and brutal. I suspect being sodomized with a stick is no more pleasant that being raped by a man, although, at least, there's no risk of pregnancy.
I remember there is an old Czech SciFi movie about an utopian society where men are obselete and women procastrinate by cloning. Anyone remember then name?
:)
That movie is not Czech, but Polish, original title is "Sexmisja" (Sexmise in Czech dabing). Some early 80', I guess. In after-nuclear war epoch, women consolidated a society in underground bunkers-mines system, ruled by two opposing organizations, Genetix and Archeo, struggling each other with different ideologies... until they found a hybernation chamber with two frozen men in excavations.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088083/?___412
Well, seems a story writer is a Czech
There you are, staring at me again.
This could be a great way towards extinction.
1. Phase out men.
2. When there are no men you can only breed through a procedure.
3. Wait for a major war or some major problem where a lot of people die and a good chance many with the knowledge of the procedure will die to. (Just because the world is run by woman don't think for a second that they will solve all the problems that we have)
4. Then a slow extinction.
Generally it is a bad idea. There is also the issue rejecting half of the genetic code and the biological and psyological difference that men have give a major advantage to the specie.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That's the craziest thing I ever heard of. As soon women get any rights, the first thing they do is stop having babies. The old 1980's battle of the sexes is a two way street. If men may be obsolete sperm providers, then it follows that a woman is useless unless she is pregnant!
This is my sig.
Lets face it, robotic mowers exist. Garbage chutes exist. But dildo's have been around for millenia and they never replaced us yet.
Mind you, it is murder on the hips but a man got to do, what a man got to do. I will bravely sacrifice myself so that the rest of slashdot can live a pure life! Yes I am that noble.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The Daily Mail is considered a tabloid rag by many of us who have lived in the UK because they cater to people with a palate for sensationalist headlines and content. The referenced New Scientist article talking about Karim Nayernia's research was published in April of 2007 but The Daily Mail chose to report it many months later. Regardless, since last year there have been few tangible gains in this field. The problem rests in the fact that converted stem cells can achieve the first 2 of 3 stages towards mature sperm development. Even once this is done there is no guarantee the sperm can actually be used in IVF to create a viable/implantable fertilized egg.
The implications of this research are great but rags like The Daily Mail focus on the most provocative uses such as gay/lesbian couples conceiving and auto-reproduction. Before we can approve this research for use in the public we must ascertain whether the manipulations necessary to force conversion of bone marrow stem cells into spermatogonium or the products of these cells potentially introduce undetectable abnormalities within the genetic code. Next, during the process of spermatogenesis chromosomal crossover introduces genetic variability. Without more details in the original article I wonder if one of the failing stages of development involves this important process. Lastly, auto-reproduction is nearly impossible. Every person carries a set of lethal recessive alleles which manifest themselves in incestuous reproductive pairings--hence why most societies have shunned this sort of relationship. This would almost certainly guarantee the fetus would spontaneously abort.
The real application of this research is injecting spermatogonium eggs in women or men who are infertile. This would revolutionize reproductive medicine because it would allow couples to conceive naturally. However, being in the medical field, there are very valid natural reasons why couples may not be able to reproduce (i.e. certain genetic abnormalities) or why fetuses spontaneously abort that we need to decide as a society whether its prudent to interfere. I don't claim to have the answers but I would welcome discussion in this direction so we can make informed choices in the medical breakthroughs we're bound to see in the next few decades.
Incidentally, the New Scientist published a new article today on the matter discussing the implications of this research. Without having a subscription I can't read more but I certainly wouldn't count out fathers just yet. Having a child is only the first part of the equation. Raising an emotionally and psychologically well-adjusted child still necessitates their role--although many single-parents or LGBT couples may argue this point. Anyway, as a community I hope we're a bit more careful of citing sensationalist publications.
Surprise surprise, a male (Karim Nayernia) invented the technique. I guess that's how superfluous we are?
But hey it's alright to be sexist; you're female.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
I wouldn't say obsolete, just a lot cheaper.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
So men are now downgraded to just a lustobject?
Ofcourse that's very sad and tragic. But I can live with it.
Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
While feminists like to exaggerate the bad properties and general uselessness of men and the superior characteristics of women, they fail to realize that those properties have been genetically selected by their sexual counterpart. If men are really that useless, this must mean that women really suck at selecting a sexual partner.
If womens "stupid useless macho" partner preference is left unchecked by a mitigating male preference, everybody in the future will pretty much be a man with different sexual organs.
I mean, what is reproduction without men good for, when there is no way to make a man pay for the children?
Talk about inbreeding.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Somehow a civilization of bone-marrow specialist dykes does not seem all that likely...
Does that mean the artifical womb makes women obsolete? No men, no women. What will be there?
Sounds like Al Qaeda will have a large supply of remote detonated 'suicide' bombers.
Gives a whole new meaning to "getting boned"!
Okay, am I the only one somewhat concerned by this? Imagine the day when a chick can take a swab of your skin (skin cells are relatively easy to grow in a Petri dish, so quantity isn't such as issue as long as you get down to some live ones), and make a baby with you...imagine what the ethical and legal implications would be...
Wha? Who still gives a shit about their karma? That's so 2001.
Until we have RFID implanted in all men and a total surveillance society to track them, men can still decide at any time after a baby is born that they just don't care anymore about it and skip out with practically no consequences compared to the woman they leave behind. Only women with the resources to both battle in court for child support and track the man down who flees jurisdiction can count on guaranteed support, and in most cases it's easier to just go on without the help that keep such a problematic "father" somewhere in the picture.
In reality the biological burden of gestating a child and the financial burden in raising a child are both squarely on the woman's shoulders. So IMHO the woman should get the first and only say about whether or not she is ready for it.
The Y chromosome has very little on it, in terms of functioning gene packages - it carries SRY (the sex-determining region that codes for male primary and secondary sex characteristics) and that's about it. X, on the other hand, carries quite a bit of important information - genes pertaining to blood clotting, muscle tissue formation, neuron and myelin sheath formation, androgen receptor formation, white blood cell formation and color photoreceptor formation, just to name a few.
:-)
In an XY individual, you only have one chance to get working copies of those genes, which is why certain disorders pertinent to those systems show up much more often in males than in females (hemophilia and other hematologic disorders, various muscular dystrophies, myopathies and neuropathies, a few immune disorders, pattern baldness, color blindness et al). Without any X at all, as you'd have in a YY, all those genes are gone completely. Hopefully you can see why an individual with non-functional muscles and nerves, no ability to clot and no immune function wouldn't be viable.
Hope this helps!
First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
However, having only 1 X chromosome sometimes create beneficial effects that would have been masked/averaged out by having 2 X chromosomes.
That's why statistically, the female aggregate more towards the average, while the male polarize from the extreme retarded to the extreme genius, from jails to Nobel Prizes.
To get back to the question. Is Men Obsolete? Read this article and make up your own mind.
http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
Gay people are perfectly capable of having children and often do. Go to any major american city's gay pride parade and you'll see a large troupe of gay and lesbian parents marching with their children. We're just less likely to do so, because of a number of reasons prominently including worry that heterosexuals will try to take our children away from us, and the fact that since heterosexuals don't let us marry, it's more financially and legally difficult for us to have children.
Furthermore, the whole "if the world was entirely gay" BS is a strawman argument; it hasn't happened, it isn't going to happen, grow up.That's not what evolutionary biologists have to say about it. What seems to be the case is that having gay children benefits other children in the extended family because as they become adults the gay people would likely be interested in being an additional caretaker and provider for the heterosexuals in the family, thus improving their chance to survive to reproduce.
We gay people are here, we're not going to tolerate repression any more, and you have no choice but to live with the fact. So start dealing with it.