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.-
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!
I think you're right, I don't think the intention is for women to impregnate themselves with sperm created from their own bone marrow. The idea is that a woman can impregnate another woman.
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"
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
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.
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);
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...
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.