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."

Comments

dont forget

[User 956]

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!

Of course men not obsolete just yet

[syousef]

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.

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[damburger]

But many women like the, ahem, companionship of other women. If this has a genetic basis (almost certain) then the genetic offspring of two such women is very likely to feel the same way. A female-only subculture is almost certainly on the way.

The depressing thing is, as a man I can't really think of why we should be allowed to stick around.

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[value_added]

From a sexual point of view, most women are still part conditioned and part pre-programmed to want male ahem companionship.

I take it you haven't fathered any offspring. That "want" you're referring to is at its height during the brief courtship phase. Past that, it's replaced with something very different.

Here's how it works. The girl gets pregnant and your "companionship" privileges are revoked with occasional but increasingly rare exceptions using rules that only a woman could understand.

The child is born. Companionship has been replaced by sharing of duties. A year or two passes, and the privileges return occasionally, but only if you've met your workload. That continues for several years (in an ideal environment) until lust and love are relegated to "remember when?" memories. The bond between the mother and child is strong and unbreakable. The bond between the two of you is weak. You're now living the life of someone who's entered into a series of complex, interwined legal and financial agreements. Satisfy all those agreements and you may reach the 6-7 year mark. Fail, or complain about the loss of companionship, you'll discover what misery really means.

If you've come this far, and you're unhappy, then it's hookers and blackjack for you (she's busy and has "her" kids to think about). On the other hand, if she's unhappy, she will consider you as unimportant, and leave. The legal and financial agreements stay, so she gets the kids and house, and you get the bills. The world will be supportive of her decision, and you end up like a stray dog wandering the streets.

Let's all be friends, instead.

Only if you were friends to begins with. Good friends are sufficiently motivated to work things out. But then, ask yourself often people marry their friends?

damn.

[theheadlessrabbit]

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. :(

More seriously...

[DrYak]

This could be genuine good news for :
- 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 /. to get laid.

Re:More seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you _SEEN_ the average /.er? It's more likely that that's the reason why women would seek this.

Infertility Applications

[amilham]

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.

Women of the world, I entreat thee!

[Junior J. Junior III]

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!

Re:Women of the world, I entreat thee!

[swarsron]

great, now they're going to rip our bones out to make sperm. Way to go, traitor!

Re:Too bad....

[Znork]

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.

Please don't cite The Daily Mail

[Critical_]

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.

Re:We discussed males and females, so....

[tacocat]

I guess after being told to "Go Fuck Yourself" for so many years, these scientists finally found a way to do it.

There will be some interesting debates raging about this one for a long time. I'm of the opinion that on the whole, we are better off with the process of gene mixing than practicing self-eugenics.

Men will win in the end (sort of)

[mithras invictus]

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.